I once started a similar thread, but I called it "Physical response (ooooh baby!)" or something like that

essentially my answer would be yes, but the government can always judge your behaviour afterwards and deem your reaction to be out of proportion with the behaviour that provoked it

American law agrees with East though I understand the Brits are moving away from a common law right to self defense.

You don't have a moral obligation to do anything. Moral obligations are not empirically testable, and things that are not empirically testable deserve no other response than suspending judgment.

"what about people parking illegally, you gonna slash their tires? the government currently doesnt enforce alot of laws, theres plenty of excuses for people to become vigilantes already. what right do you have to impose your beliefs on others?"

isn't that imposing your belief in inaction, on me?

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> "what about people parking illegally, you gonna slash their tires? the government currently doesnt enforce alot of laws, theres plenty of excuses for people to become vigilantes already. what right do you have to impose your beliefs on others?"

isn't that imposing your belief in inaction, on me?

my belief inaction doesnt impose anything on you. if i tried to force you to be inactive, then i would be imposing my belief of inaction on you.

yes

> Justinian I wrote:

> > 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.

1: Look, I usually agree with you on this issue.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm only saying that right now, the issue is about what would be good for Rooster to use as an argument for a debate round.  This particular event he is doing is a value-based debate.  That means judges have a bias against you for multiple reasons:
A: They came in the room to watch a value debate (This doesn't mean that utilitarian calculus can never be debated... on the contrary, I know plenty of people who do extremely well arguing pure utilitarianism, myself included),
B: He's being judged mostly by people who aren't ex-debaters.  They identify more with the value and emotion than utilitarianism, in large part.

2: Here's two more reasons why he shouldn't argue this:

First, the double-bind.  Either your argument means there is a way to evaluate the round, in which case A happens and your argument goes away, or there is no way to evaluate the debate, in which case B will happen:
A: The affirmative can engage the negative on a utilitarian basis.  Here's how:
"Justified" is based on what people should do.  The affirmative will argue that the government "should" do what helps the most people.  The reason is that all other arguments are subjective, just as you said.  However, the one absolute is death: you can't undie.  Unless we protect life, there's no possibility of exploring other alternatives.  Plus there's no reason why death is good, whereas there's a risk that death is bad because it destroys an individual's quality of life (life sucks when you're dead).  There's probably better arguments that could be put for why we should value human life, but I'm not going to get into them, and you probably agree that we should prevent massive death (think human extinction).

B: If your argument doesn't allow any way to weigh arguments against one another, then we reject your argument by default: accepting it means there's no way to evaluate affirmative vs. negative, so the judge can't make a vote.  Not making a vote would decimate the event for obvious reasons, as winning wouldn't be much more effective than a coin flip.

Second, even if you win the argument, what does that gain you?  At most, it's a defensive argument (it's a reason not to evaluate the affirmative arguments, but not a reason to reject them.  Think of it like a baseball team that never actually tries to get on base, but awesome at defense.  That team will never be able to win because, eventually, even if it's at the 308749012740870417th inning, the other team will probably get a run).

Now, there are some offensive arguments some people make (I have seen arguments that affirming your own values creates "west is best" scenarios and causes US imperialism).  But then you've allowed the opponent to weigh against you on a utilitarian basis and outweigh you (a US-Africa war is probably less devastating than a US-China war, for example).

Besides, for this topic, most people will debate on a utilitarian basis.  Most of these topics are real-world issues that are "if you vote this way, you save X people from dying," or "if you vote for them, you cause X people to die."  If your argument allows people to say "we should stop unnecessary death," they probably will do that anyway.  Most people aren't going to just affirm "this is immoral" with regard to vigilantism.

One problem with vigilantism is that they do consist of moral standards and such as much as you think they should be abolished justainan the legal system is based on morals and it is why it is different in different places. So vigilantes could only be people of a set culture and only apply to one culture (in its ideal form) or set of morality. I think that's where it could go horribly wrong.

Although I do like justinians way of thinking, but It actually puts me at a disadvantage because judges are more likely to vote for "I am more moral" than "i am the most pragmatic/ my opponent cant achieve any of this bullshit" Great example was my last topic.

Resolved: the US ought to join an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
My negative case was built around us doing what is in our best interest but I lost EVERY round because of this. I lost because the affirmative always said they are taking the moral aproach and that our "best interest" doesn't matter when people are being systematically murdered. The judge chose the one that "sounded" better even if my arguments were more realistic in their nature. In reality, I pointed out that the court wouldn't be able to prevent one genocide and genocide will continue to happen.

So...
I have learned that i have to appeal to the emotions of the judge as well as have a fairly logical argument.

So on the affirmative i'm thinking I could say vigilantes are the next line of defense in a society where there is no government. Negatives attempts at making it seem like I advocate anarchy are all irrelevant because I will start off by saying the state has already slipped into anarchy. If the government is not enforcing it's laws, then what good is the government doing? The main purpose of a government is to protect the liberties of the people but when the government fails this obligation, there is no government. Vigilantes must be a temporary defense for citizens until the state comes out of anarchy and back into civilized society.

My problem is with the negative because the only argument i can think of is that it will cause anarchy.

Feel free to constructively criticize my arguments here.

Is Vigilantism justified when the government fails to enforce the law?

QUOTE:

"By first glance I actually want to take two positions on this (which is good for debate cause you have to take both sides)
For justice i beleive that we cannot involve in vigilantism because you are not giving suspect a trial. And since the suspect is innocent until proven guilty, you are punishing an absolutely innocent person which is not achieving justice in anyway."

In France, suspects are guilty until proven innocent? Does that mean vigilantism is justified there? I believe you're confusing someone "actually being innocent" and someone being "presumed to be innocent". The law presumes people to be innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't state that they are actually innocent. It's a minor distinction, but an important one. Besides, I believe the issue of vigilantism goes beyond whether the law presumes you to be innocent or guilty.

You may want to examine the reasons humans developed courts and the consequences of allowing any citizen to carry out their own brand of justice against perceived law breakers. I mean...there's a reason vigilantism hasn't been allowed in England for ages and I assure you....it wasn't because of an overwhelming concern for people's human rights

Also, I was reading a brochure from my home town the other day. My hometown plows all city streets within 24 hours of what they call "snow events". To accomplish this, council passed a by-law prohibiting people from parking on the streets until 24 hours after a snow event (or presumably, until their street has been plowed). If you fail to comply, you will either be ticketed $80, or (if they need to move your car to plow) your car will be towed to a nearby location at your expense.

So what's the point? The point is, that on this brochure, my city included a warning: "Cars will not be towed or ticketed based on information from the public".  This prevents my neighbour across the street, whose sole pleasure in life comes from tormenting me, from calling 5 minutes after a snow event and getting me ticketed. Think about it.

Law enforcement officers and the courts are fairly unbiased organizations.  Are people? Is it possible that people are more likely than courts or policemen to be swayed by personal dislikes, friendships, self-interest, racism, homophobia, a hatred of young people, neighbourhood feuds etc.? Can you trust the observations of someone who is biased or invested in a certain outcome?

The courts will punish a black person who is caught vandalising a school. The courts will punish a white person who is caught vandalising a school. Your neighbour is a vigilante. He punishes the black people he sees vandalising the school, but not the white people. Is that justice?

Your neighbour hates you. He scrutinizes everything you do, researches archaic laws that were never repealed, and punishes you for every violation. He ignores everyone else, even when they blatantly violate the law. Is that justice?

What is the purpose of the law? Is that purpose served by vigilantes who selectively enforce it based on their own personal predilections? Is that justice?

How do vigilantes decide what level of punishment is appropriate if they're punishing the perpetrators?

What are the reasons for punishment under the law (e.g. In many tort cases, the purpose of the damages is monetary restitution)? Are those purposes served by vigilantes who punish people based on their own personal predilections? Is that justice?

C and D commit the exact same theft in the exact same way. Vigilante A gives C 10 lashes for stealing. Vigilante B cuts off both of D's hands. Has D been unfairly punished? Has C not been punished enough? Has justice been served in both cases? Courts have limits on what they can do to people. They also have guidelines for sentencing for serious cases and a stack of precendent much of the time that they use for guidance. Vigilantes can do anything they have the means to do. Is anything they do considered justified? How do you limit what they do?

If I defame you, and you decide to carry out an act of vigilante justice...what do you do? How do you punish something abstract like damage to your repuation?

Are a single individual's arbitrary decisions justice?

(Another useful question to think about is why common law countries began to use a system of precedent and moved away from the arbitrary decisions of judges)

Then you have problems with escalation.

I commit a theft.
Because I committed a theft, you punish me by cutting off my hand.
You cut off my hand. That's a battery (an assault in criminal law).
Because you committed a battery(assault), I cut off your hand and add in your foot to deter you from future crimes. Those actions are also batteries.
You approach me with a knife to punish me for my batteries.
Fearing for my life, I kill you in self-defence.

Who's right? The thief committed a crime. But technically the vigilante committed a crime when he chopped off the person's hand. He had no right to do so under law, and was in fact, prohibited by law. So the person with the missing hand has a genuine grievance against the vigilante. So where does this stop? Who steps in a finally says that that's enough? Who has that authority and the power to do so?

(Escalating feuds were a contributing factor in the development of the common law in England)

QUOTE:

"But morally, vigilantism is justified because if you see a fellow citizen being murdered, then you have a moral obligation to help out your fellow citizen. Although, under law the person you saw shoot the gun at your fellow citizen is innocent, you have more common sense than that and can arrest that person atleast until law enforcement starts to work again. And also according to the social contract, you have no duty to uphold your side of the contract if the government doesn't hold up it's side of the contract. The governments only obligations are to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property. So under the social contract it is totally justified."

Your first argument doesn't work. I'm not sure which country you're from, but in many countries, under the law, citizens have the right under law to make what's commonly called a "citizen's arrest". In doing so, they may arrest someone whom they see committing a crime (generally they have to see it, not suspect it...police can arrest based on suspicion however). They are then under a duty to treat them humanely and turn them over to the authorities as soon as possible. That's not really vigilantism. I mean, you could try to argue it is...but it's a weak argument.

Your argument about the social contract may be hypocritical. On one hand you're saying the government has failed to uphold its side of the contract, and thus you no longer have to uphold yours and can ignore their laws. On the other hand, you're saying that the government's laws still apply, and are valid reasons for carrying out your brand of justice.

Unless you're creating your own laws....which raises a whole host of concerns.

P.S. What kind of laws are we talking about here? For instance, many laws aren't meant to be enforced all the time (e.g. parking by-laws). Parking by-laws for instance are only meant to be enforced occasionally. The city's goal isn't to nab every illegal parker out there. That's impossible. Just to nab enough of them that it deters people from parking illegally. Obviously, for murder, the government wants to catch and punish every murderer.

The uncertain parameters of the question make it difficult to be of much help. I'm not sure if you're talking about a parking ticket situation or a situation where a government that is close to collapse, chaos is reigning in the streets, and the government is unable to enforce any laws.

You'll get a load of arguments for when the vigilante does wrong because he/she is operating outside the court systems we're used to cleaning up for when law enforcement does. This is all irrelevant because anyone can commit crimes. Murdering someone for a crime because one is a racist vigilante that one would have only demanded repayment for injury of another doesn't make the vigilante wrong because he's a vigilante; it makes him wrong because he's a racist murderer. The matter at question here is whether vigilantism is inherently wrong, which these arguments miss entirely. Vigilantism tends to be concentrated within breakdown of government power and legitimate authority; focused on times when normal government laws are not being enforced and cannot be relied upon to protect people from those among them who would oppress them (as in, oppress their right to not have all their property stolen, women raped, not lose their lives, etc).

On that note (what note? I have no idea), it's not necessarily hypocritical to accept vigilantism in light of social contract theory. When government power breaks down, there is no mechanism to protect people from criminals. A vigilante following existing laws (currently enforced by no one) who takes action against significant infractions of those existing laws (otherwise not being enforced) is merely reintroducing the laws which people previously expected to be protected by. Is it inherently wrong to beat the face in/knock some teeth out of a man (beyond self defense) who breaks into one's home and attempts to steal supplies from a family home in the case of a power break-down? I don't think so. In the absense of a legitimate authority (legitimacy here we'll just presume based on the concensus/support of the populace), wrong is still wrong and right is still right. But in this circumstance nothing protects people from criminals.

I would argue that being passive while your family is left for dead (or worse, killed [or worse yet, raped/tortured] first) because "vigilantism is wrong" is totally morally repugnant.

That's why I asked whether the government had power (e.g. parking ticket scenario) or whether the society was in chaos (revolution etc.). It matters a great deal which arguments can be used depending on the situation. It would be helpful if that could be clarified by the original poster.

Kemp. You can't separate the racist vigilante from vigilantes in general. All humans have biases. The legal system works to remove biases, to remove arbitrary decisions. There are minimum sentences, maximum sentences, juries, rules governing evidence and a whole bunch of other bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. While it makes the system a bit unwieldy and inefficient at times, it helps guarantee people are treated fairly and in a relatively unbiased manner. With individual vigilantes, you have people succumbing to their whims. Sure, not all of them are racist. But everyone has a bias of some sort. Some may overlook crimes committed by friends and family. Some may only punish black people. Some may go after people they personally dislike, or people who are politically inconvenient. All of them will likely overlook crimes committed by themselves.

If all or most of the vigilantes are wrong because of the human condition, than vigilantism may be wrong for humans as a means of law enforcement. So you could tie it in.

I'm assuming of course, that the judges are concerned with vigilantism among humans as we are, and not among the mythical ideal humans who are also able to create a perfect communist society.

I would dispute your second point as well based on a belief that if a government is unable to enforce a law because they lack the power, then it is not a law. There are no inherent laws that govern all mankind. There are only the laws that a government imposes through force. If government power breaks down and they are unable to impose law, then there is no law. The power to enforce a law is a key component. The fact that the government can and does punish murderers from the east coast to the west coast is what gives validity to the laws against murder. If they made a law banning sex, they wouldn't be able to enforce it, and thus it would have no validity. People would be having sex as if nothing had happened, and the government would be unable and powerless to enforce it.

If you take the view that laws are constructs imposed by government and that they do exist without the government's ability to impose them upon the people, then without goverment power, there is no law. Without law, there are no vigilantes. There are also no criminals. What there are, are people struggling to survive.

Would I find someone protecting their property in such a situation wrong? Nope. There's no law, no government, no order... so it's every person for themselves.

Thus, though we agree that it is not wrong for people to protect their families when government break down, we differ slightly on how we reach that conclusion. So...I still maintain it's hypocritical to justify vigilantism based on a breach of the social contract.