|
|
Post by Erika on Jul 4, 2014 21:56:27 GMT -5
The Vigilante fights crime without a license. Is s/he a good guy or a bad guy? Is what s/he is doing wrong, within the context of the comic? What are the pros and cons of her/him doing what s/he does?
This is a short answer assignment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adamant Ace on Jul 6, 2014 22:42:08 GMT -5
I'd argue that while Vigilante is technically breaking the law, s/he isn't necessarily a bad guy. However, that doesn't mean that what s/he is doing is right. In the context of the comic, what s/he is doing is illegal and it would also be considered against the law here too. I have a hard time understanding why Vigilante doesn't just join the Agency (unless s/he is trying to prove something) considering that it would allow s/he to do almost exactly the same thing legally. I'd say that what s/he is doing isn't necessarily wrong, but is still illegal.
Pros: Can do the job however they want to and don't have to deal with all of the bureaucracy of the Agency.
Cons: What they're doing is illegal and they're aren't being compensated for it. If caught, s/he will go to prison.
Grade: Three mysterious shadows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twitch on Jul 27, 2014 22:20:40 GMT -5
The question hinges on where a hero has the obligation to be legal as well as moral. If yes, then unlicensed hero are bad guys. However, history show many examples of when doing the moral thing means doing something illegal. American Underground Railway for Slaves was very illegal. On the other hand, getting a license shouldn't be an immoral act. There seems to be no need to oppose the current law. I personal think that while the Vigilante may a good guy, s/he is definitely doing the wrong thing. The Vigilante's motivations, moral compass, and personal code are hard to figure out. S/he has gained the ability to act however s/he sees fit without 'checking' in with a support group. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Some people might argue the Vigilante is rebel for freedom. I say that 'freedom of choice' is only part of true freedom - freedom means you shoulder the consequences of your actions. Avoiding/passing those consequences onto someone else limits their freedom. Until more information on the Vigilante and the establishment of the blue and red cards comes to light, I do not have a very high opinion of the Vigilante. Grade: +100 points for use of latin |
|
|
|
Post by rypperd0c on Jul 28, 2014 10:37:19 GMT -5
The Vigilante is a person with the same rights and responsibilities under the law. This includes a moral obligation to the social contract to help maintain, within reason, a safe community. It is the "Within Reason" part that puts a hitch on things.
All persons have a right to self defense. This self defense can, depending on the circumstances, be extended to other individuals, and even to property. Whether the Vigilante is a good or bad person would depend on how they go about trying to serve the public good, and how far they go in the pursuit of their goals.
Example (A) Vigilante, who has powers, gadgets, or training, dresses nice, adds some 'bling,' and then goes through bad neighborhoods acting like he is lost... Basically trolling for muggers. He is putting himself into potential danger, but only comes into direct conflict with someone that attacks him. He is not violating anybody's rights, or breaking any laws. While not very smart, he could be counted as a good guy. When word gets out about him, there is a good chance that potential muggers will hesitate before going after what looks like a soft target.
Example (B) Vigilante, who has powers, gadgets, or training, actively tracks down suspected criminals and attacks them, so that he can subdue and capture them. This person is already a bad guy. He is taking on the role of a police officer, or hero, but without the authority or oversite that goes with those positions. He could be attacking innocents, or violating rights and/or due process. Likely, any evidence he or she discovered would be inadmissible in court, and the 'criminal' would he let go because of it.
In the comic, any active vigilante is a bad guy, because he is getting in the way of a proper investigations and arrests, and putting the public at large at risk.
Want to be a vigilante, do it with a camera. video record everything from a safe distance, and then turn your recordings over to the proper authority.
2 High res nokias
|
|
|
|
Post by Kashiro on Sept 1, 2014 6:45:33 GMT -5
Vigilantes can't be categorised as strictly villains or heroes. Most vigilantes work for a good cause, and just use a more violent/illegal means to do so. If we are discussing The Vigilante from the comics, then what he does is justified, as he is seen handing criminal to the police already defeated. However, vigilantes in general can be obstacles, as they can interfere with police procedure and protocol. This is both good and bad, as by ignoring protocol, villains can be apprehended faster; however it can also cause excessive property damage and excessive injuries. Furthermore, if they don't succeed, they are unlikely to have the backup that being part of an organisation can grant. The morality of what vigilantes do depends on whether one believes the ends justify the means. If one does the wrong things for the right reasons (i.e. Skitter) then they cannot be blamed for their intent; rather, the tragedy and aftermath of their actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twitch on Sept 3, 2014 17:42:35 GMT -5
If one does the wrong things for the right reasons (i.e. Skitter) then they cannot be blamed for their intent; rather, the tragedy and aftermath of their actions. You bring up an interesting theory in assigning blame. |
|
|
|
Post by Kashiro on Sept 4, 2014 6:17:22 GMT -5
If one does the wrong things for the right reasons (i.e. Skitter) then they cannot be blamed for their intent; rather, the tragedy and aftermath of their actions. You bring up an interesting theory in assigning blame. It's a bit hazy, I know, but let's just take skitter her as an example. The reason I say this is (WORM SPOILERS: CAREFUL) Skitter starts off wanting to be a hero, but then accidentally becomes a villain. Then she causes property damage and a lot of chaos ensues which ends in the death of a malign god directly at her hands. So, on one hand you have super-villainy and murder. On the other, you have the salvation of the human race. The intent was to become a hero, but that quickly went south and thus she is treated by her actions rather than what she intended (repeating myself again and again, but I'm tired so why not - because she wanted to be a hero). |
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Sept 4, 2014 22:45:37 GMT -5
I think this kind of goes back to that dichotomy of defining evil vs defining illegal. Legally people are held accountable for their actions, while morally we generally look at their intent.
|
|
