Even Spider-Man is morally wrong...

[kenposcum]

I had a long talk with one of my instructors a few years ago about vigilanteism and stopping bad people if you knew they were bad. For instance, suppose you had a female friend (or a male friend, I suppose) who was raped. She didn't go to the cops right away, due to psychological trauma, and instead she went to you to cry. The situation makes it clear to you that this guy had a clear modus operandi: too perfect a predator in terms of setting up his situation. He's probably done it before, will probably do it again.
I was of the opinion that someone should go intercept this guy and cut his ears off. But my instructor said, no. That's wrong. Violence is only justified when it is to be used to prevent violence against oneself or another, AT THAT MOMENT. Thusly, to cut this perv's ears off is wrong, because it is seeking the violence-doer in order to inflict violence upon him, not justly responding in an emergency with violence to quell violence.
So in a strict moral sense, even Spidey is wrong because he is seeking out those that committ violent criminal acts and inflicting violence upon them (sure, he's no Punisher, but you understand the point). It is a step beyond the idea that "Unprokoved violence is wrong." Sure Mr. Evil Rapist provoked me with his actions, but I didn't WITNESS it (and don't say that it didn't happen, because...in my hypothetical, you KNOW in your heart that it happened) therefore an expression of violence to mitigate this person's violence is wrong.
So what do you think? Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world. Violence is always wrong: true or false?:asian:

 

[cdhall]

I just became a Christian last year but I think that even Jesus said that he would not strike back against an attacker. And come to think of it, he didn't.

So I think that as a Christian I have to say that violence is always morally wrong.

But I'm not perfect and I would really prefer to stuff some SOB who was trying to attack me. :karate:

As far as Spidey goes, yes. He is hunting down criminals instead of helping the police. He's a vigilante. I like Batman because he hunts them down when/because the authorities can't or won't but that is also not a Christian thing.

This Christianity business is confusing. I'm hoping to make it to Black Belt and then meditate on whether I want to teach or continue after that. I have a lot invested so far and there are the benefits of exercise and self-defense that I think have some merit.

I guess my answer is that violence is morally wrong but I prefer to use it in self-defense and sometimes in retaliation nonetheless and that Spidey is a vigilante but maybe not to Batman's extent.

 

[ace]

U are rite as far as the law is consernd


But Eye for an Eye
If someone hurt someone i cared about.
It's game over & light Out!

:armed:

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by ace

U are rite as far as the law is consernd


But Eye for an Eye
If someone hurt someone i cared about.
It's game over & light Out!

:armed:

Just to play "devils advocate" what if the person you went to go kick ***, happened to be better than you at some MA and in turn kicked your ***, or injured you seriously? Then you would be in a situation as well.


7sm

 

[Blindside]

No cops anywhere?

I go after the guy, stalk him, ambush him, he'll never see me, and ideally never see the muzzle flash.

Heck, the US is contemplating a war based on a first strike policy, the parallels to this scenario are pretty damn good.

Lamont

 

[ace]

It would not be a game!!!!!!!




:angry: I came from the streets
Before i walked in the Dojo!

U would let this hapen!!
??????????????????


Eye for an Eye

:2xbird:

 

[Nightingale]

with regards to Christianity... I learned this in a Christian theology class I took in college...

The phrase "Turn the other cheek" has to be taken in historical context. At that time period, in that society, slapping someone across the face was an insult, equivalent to spitting on someone or giving them "the finger" today. In light of this context, "turn the other cheek" could be interpreted as a directive to ignore petty insults and not make mountains out of molehills. That passage in the bible doesn't address the concept of self-defense at all.

from http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

"But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"

Jesus specifically mentions the right cheek here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)

Its an interesting website. Check it out. it discusses self-defense and gun control in a biblical context.

 

[Despairbear]

Originally posted by kenposcum

So what do you think? Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world. Violence is always wrong: true or false?:asian:

Always? Well I do not think it is possable to say ANYTHING is always right or wrong. As to morality, who's morality? That of the victim or that of the responder (you)? My morality will be vastly different than others here and vice versa. What would I do? Well that is for me to know and question myself about, it can lead to a deep introspection of one's personal philisophy. People who respond a situation with instant violance may need to examine their motives. Vengance? Retaliation? Posturing? Justice? Obligation? What drives you?


Despair Bear

 

[authoreyes]

this is a very interesting discussion....

i have often pondered issues like this...

i have a friend who is a devout pacifist who believes that violence always breeds violence..he and i have often had discussions like this and his view is that you and i (our actions which require explanation for justification) are irreguardless in the greater sense of humanity. therefore, an example must be set to break the chain of violence or else regardless of motive, etc..an act of violence will continue to be perpertrated...now, i dont know if i could always be that level headed when the situation is not just a distant philisophical discusion....however, id have to say that vigilantiasm is definetly not the answer in my opinion because as others have stated, almost anyone can find cause to justify their actions and without any kind of law there would eventually be some form of chaos.

 

[authoreyes]

blindside, good parallel about the US...

 

[Damian Mavis]

If you knew for sure that he was going to commit this act again then you are preventing him from doing it whether you wait to catch him in the act or cut him off before he even gets to that point by doing something now. It's a tough call though. I personally know where pedophiles and child rapists live in my own city. It's a constant struggle to not get involved and do something stupid.

Damian Mavis
Honour TKD

 

[jkn75]

Originally posted by kenposcum

So what do you think? Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world. Violence is always wrong: true or false?

:soapbox:
If calling the cops is pointless, who do you call when you are being robbed? hear a scream? hear a gunshot? want to break up a loud party next door?

Next:
In your scenario, violence wouldn't always be wrong. There is violence everyday but some is directed to defend against or used to punish a perpetrator. In society, there has to be a way to keep order, hence we have laws. That's why most people don't go up to sex offender's houses, lock them in and burn it down, no matter how great the desire. If someone does, they are punished. In a society without someone to keep order, we have anarchy. Or we have what we have in Mad Max, who can quickly and efficiently intimidate and/or kill those who have wronged them or have the valuables? They rise to power and leave bodies in their wake. Whatever you think about the legal system, be happy it is there.

Justice is difficult to define and it's often hard in our society to see what is just. Justice also interplays with what is moral and even more so, into a person's own idea of what is "right". These are difficult subjects and there are no absolutes. Violence cannot always be wrong just because the basis of what is wrong is not absolute.

 

[Radhnoti]

I believe that someone suffering for wrongs they've perpetrated becomes a deterrant for others who may be contemplating a similar crime in our society.
Same reason I support the death penalty, if there's no fear of consequences for socially unacceptable deeds...why would "bad" people bother conforming at all?
Guess I'm backin' up jkn75's POV here...

 

[Nightingale]

the problem with that argument is that when someone commits a crime, they don't think they're gonna get caught, so punishment as a deterrant doesn't work.

How many of us speed on the highway? um...I'd venture to say all of us. How many of us speed with a cop behind us? I'd say none. People only commit crimes when they're pretty darn sure that they're not going to get caught. Its really the cop who enforces the punishment that is the deterrant, not the punishment itself.

 

[ace]

A.K.A the Death Penalty! :idea:

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by kenposcum

Violence is always wrong: true or false?

Violence in self-defense is not wrong. Violence in attack (even retaliation or prevention) is wrong, IMO.

In your scenario, if you did go and harm the guy, you would pay for it by law. Citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands because the definition of the severity of how they were wronged is different.

For example, you might think that harming the "rapist" is the right thing to do. A gang-banger might think that harming you is right because you looked at his girlfriend wrong.

The law keeps it constant. No matter what you think, calling the cops is ALWAYS the right thing to do. NEVER take things into your own hands.

WhiteBirch

 

[authoreyes]

agreed....well put

 

[7starmantis]

Yeah, its a hard question, I mean if you attack the attacker, you are making yourself just as wrong as them, but then if your talking about a world with no legal system, who is going to administer the punishment? There has to be a legal system of some sort, if you are a christian even God says to have a system of legal workings, if you are not a christian, chaos says you must have a system.


7sm

 

[Shinzu]

i'm not cool with going around and hunting down the bad people, but if you hurt someone i love then we are going to have problems. i'm sorry... wrong or right that is how i feel.

as far as spidy goes... chill, it's just a comic book character. and BTW, i can't wait to get it on dvd. nov. 11th

 

[Carbon]

Actually I think spiderman didn't attack villians.

He went looking for wrong doing, and when he found a criminal in the current process of commiting a crime he would then stop them and call the cops.

Now if you were talking about the move the punisher, then thats a whole other story.

He is what a vigilante is by definition. Living in the sewer and taking out the mobsters. I love that movie quite a bit