5 ms·

I'm not sure Asbostos doesn't want to... Sure, I'll concede an assumption there. I am also not convinced that vigilantism is always wrong 'Wrong' is subjec

I'm not sure Asbostos doesn't want to... Sure, I'll concede an assumption there. I am also not convinced that vigilantism is always wrong 'Wrong' is subjective so that statement is a truism. For a given act of vigilantism there will be a proportion who condone it and a proportion who don't. Who decides? That's what the law is for. It's so we can't all just wander about dispensing 'justice' without accountability. What happens if someone commits suicide because of this hack? Can their kids sue the people responsible? No, they're denied due process. I'm not convinced that law enforcement conducted by the proper authorities is always right, but at least we have some semblence of oversight and accountability and the opportunity to learn from mistakes and improve things. Don't you think it's inconsistent that the hackers themselves are hugely critical of the company they breached for not properly deleting customer data on request; and yet those same people have already started publishing that exact same customer data? They're not even accountable to their own definition of right and wrong. I can't blame the villagers who, after seeing a restaurant owner entice a dog with food only to kill it with a chair, never stepped foot in the restaurant again, effectively bankrupting it. I don't think that fits the definition of vigilantism. Vigilantism is law enforcement undertaken by those without society's authority to do so. What you described above is simple consumer choice, a boycott at worst.

StavrosK 11y ago
> 'Wrong' is subjective so that statement is a truism Morality is subjective, so dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. > For a given act of vigilantism there will be a proportion who condone it and a proportion who don't. Who decides? Same goes for a given law. > What happens if someone commits suicide because of this hack? "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong" is not the same as "I condone this hack". > Don't you think it's inconsistent I do indeed. > Vigilantism is law enforcement undertaken by those without society's authority to do so. I suspect we'll have to define our terms more strictly if we're going to debate this. My definition of vigilantism includes any action in response to an injustice that isn't performed by the executive branch of government. I can see how anyone taking the law into their own hands can lead to innocents getting hurt, but the other side of the coin is guilty people walking away. As a society, we've decided to err on the side of the innocent, which is commendable, but that doesn't mean that we've completely and utterly solved the matter of justice, making vigilantism obsolete and always unjustified.
- richmarr 11y ago
  ... dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. I just think we need to be more careful with words, as you point out. Same goes for a given law. Yet with laws there is an opportunity for debate and reform, as well as some degree accountability. You can be reasonably confident that at least a strong minority think any given law is reasonable. For vigilante actions that support will be a lot smaller and the debate, accountability and opportuity for reform drop to zero. "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong" is not the same as "I condone this hack". Sure. Apologies if it sounded like I was accusing you of that. Wasn't my intention. I just wanted to highlight the lack of accountability. My definition of vigilantism includes any action in response to an injustice that isn't performed by the executive branch of government. Sure, well in that case there are plenty of actions that are reasonable, such as undertaking a consumer boycots, or passing a gun control law in response to a school massacre. I was using the regular definition, hence the misunderstanding.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Yes, I think I agree with you on everything. I'm mostly influenced by the fact that I saw a man hit a stray dog with his car right after I fed it (it was emaciated) even though he was on a mile-long straight stretch and the dog was standing on the street for a while. Not only did he hit the dog and ran while onlookers yelled for him to stop, but he ran a stop sign in his attempt to speed away and caused a truck to veer into the opposite lane to narrowly avoid him. The police told me they couldn't do anything because a police officer wasn't there to witness any of this, which is reasonable as far as laws go, but I don't think such behaviour should go unpunished, even if it's just people thinking less of the perpetrator.

StavrosK 11y ago

> 'Wrong' is subjective so that statement is a truism Morality is subjective, so dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. > For a given act of vigilantism there will be a proportion who condone it and a proportion who don't. Who decides? Same goes for a given law. > What happens if someone commits suicide because of this hack? "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong" is not the same as "I condone this hack". > Don't you think it's inconsistent I do indeed. > Vigilantism is law enforcement undertaken by those without society's authority to do so. I suspect we'll have to define our terms more strictly if we're going to debate this. My definition of vigilantism includes any action in response to an injustice that isn't performed by the executive branch of government. I can see how anyone taking the law into their own hands can lead to innocents getting hurt, but the other side of the coin is guilty people walking away. As a society, we've decided to err on the side of the innocent, which is commendable, but that doesn't mean that we've completely and utterly solved the matter of justice, making vigilantism obsolete and always unjustified.

richmarr 11y ago
... dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. I just think we need to be more careful with words, as you point out. Same goes for a given law. Yet with laws there is an opportunity for debate and reform, as well as some degree accountability. You can be reasonably confident that at least a strong minority think any given law is reasonable. For vigilante actions that support will be a lot smaller and the debate, accountability and opportuity for reform drop to zero. "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong" is not the same as "I condone this hack". Sure. Apologies if it sounded like I was accusing you of that. Wasn't my intention. I just wanted to highlight the lack of accountability. My definition of vigilantism includes any action in response to an injustice that isn't performed by the executive branch of government. Sure, well in that case there are plenty of actions that are reasonable, such as undertaking a consumer boycots, or passing a gun control law in response to a school massacre. I was using the regular definition, hence the misunderstanding.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Yes, I think I agree with you on everything. I'm mostly influenced by the fact that I saw a man hit a stray dog with his car right after I fed it (it was emaciated) even though he was on a mile-long straight stretch and the dog was standing on the street for a while. Not only did he hit the dog and ran while onlookers yelled for him to stop, but he ran a stop sign in his attempt to speed away and caused a truck to veer into the opposite lane to narrowly avoid him. The police told me they couldn't do anything because a police officer wasn't there to witness any of this, which is reasonable as far as laws go, but I don't think such behaviour should go unpunished, even if it's just people thinking less of the perpetrator.