> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> Look, Justinian, there are probably six judges on the planet who would buy that argument who aren't former debaters. That's the problem with running arguments like that: Unless you have a good judging pool (which he doesn't), you've gotta debate the topic itself, not criticize one part (in your case, the moral obligation issue).>
My point is that moral arguments are stupid and juvenile. They depend on a value system, which are not empirically testable. What's the point of arguing about something that you can't settle with an experiment. "Oh yeah, objects of greater mass fall at a faster rate than objects with less mass, well lets test it!" When it comes to a moral position, you can't do that. At best you're throwing vacuous points at each other, or at worst using force or appealing to a crowd. Those have nothing to do with truth.
But as for vigilantism, well, if the supplier can't deliver then there will be new suppliers emerging who can deliver. When the empire falls parse, local authorities assume control. You can do what ever you want if you have the power to do it. When there is a strong central authority that efficiently delivers order and is well received by the public, then vigilantism is probably not worth the return and the risk. The supplier won't want competition or to complicate matters, and nor with the public. But if central authority breaks down and an opportunity for power opens, and you have the means to fill the void, then it's probably a smart choice to make your move.
>