Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 3582391" data-attributes="member: 94">You find the possibility that a monstrous criminal might be denied a fair trial more dangerous than monstrous criminals.So the monstrous criminal need be neither monstrous, nor criminal.Well, that does put a new spin on your position. I think we can all get behind the fact that vigilantes shouldn't be offing non-monstrous non-criminals. Feel free to stake that one out; I'm right there with you.So let's make this as simple as possible:You are witness to a crazed gunman shooting up a school. He is both clearly monstrous, and clearly criminal. You have a gun in your car. You have the opportunity to run back to your car, get your gun, and kill the madman.Are you maintaining that it is MORE GOOD to wait for the police, the duly appointed arbiters of justice, so that they might attempt to take this man alive and ensure that he gets a fair trial, regardless of how many children he might kill in the meantime-- than for you to kill him quickly and prevent further loss of life?You have previously said that it is EVIL to kill this man-- this monstrous criminal-- and that it is IMPERATIVE that he receive a fair trial.Is that a fair assessment of your position, and is it really morally superior to the vigilante who kills this prick?Yes, you can. That's exactly the hypothetical being presented.No, I can't determine which lives I am responsible for taking. You assert that only society can morally shoulder that responsibility. Individuals cannot. Individuals are incapable of judging good and evil, guilt and innocence.In fact you have stated that an individual who makes this determination, outside the blessings of society, is de facto EVIL.I honestly believe you are saying that it is morally superior to allow this madman to kill more people-- since you are not the one actually responsible for taking those lives-- than it would be for you to kill the madman and prevent further loss of life.It seems that your moral imperative is to keep society's hands clean. The individual may not kill, ever; only kill when it is "socially sanctioned" and only then when the guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt.There are people who will run to the car and shoot the madman. These people are GOOD. There are people who, with the ability to help, will instead stand by and call the police. These people are, at best, NOT GOOD.There are also people who, even lacking a gun, will attempt to tackle the armed gunman and kill him with their bare hands. These people are HEROES.You can pretend otherwise but every man knows the truth in his gut.</blockquote>

Verification