|
This question spawned from watching too many Batman movies. As we all know, Batman is a vigilante who takes the law into his own hands. But, he is also doing what nobody else is. Philosophically, this question has to do with the "impotence of evil." Evil wins by default when the good do nothing, says Ayn Rand. She's right. Batman is someone who doesn't stand by and let criminals control society. (He's fighting them with a moral code he never abandons--and that is what makes him a hero. The Joker tries to get Batman to break his moral code, but he fails. I think Ayn Rand would have loved The Dark Knight for that reason alone.) However, Batman's actions are still unsanctioned from the police department. The police consider him a vigilante and they would arrest him if they could. So the question remains: Would an Objectivist support Batman?
showing 2 of 7
show all
|
|
The reason that vigilantism is illegal is not that it isn't well-intentioned. It's illegal because the government's monopoly on the use of force is the means of keeping the moral use of force under objective control. Government, ideally, acts according to a system of laws, rather than emotional spurs of the moment or personal prejudices. If vigilantism were not illegal, we wouldn't have one government, but many governments each consisting of one person, i.e. anarchy, which means no government at all. In any movie where a vigilante is a hero, it's because, in the story, the government is relatively impotent against the villain. It depends on the story, but each such story presents a government that is either unable or unwilling to do what is right, and so the vigilante must step in. We can all sympathize with the man for whom justice is not served, due to government incompetence. We can understand wishing for a vigilante in such a case. But what we should want first, is competent and effective government. Obamacare was just literally upheld. I think it's a little too late to ask for government competence. They obviously don't care about justice. I still support vigilantism. What you said about "government being impotent against the villain" is partially accurate. The government is the villain. What EVERY rational person must do is to simply NOT PAY THE "TAX." This question is not about Obamacare. But I'd say that a government that supports Obamacare is no longer competent, and is, instead, deeply corrupt. When the government becomes the villain, a new government must be formed. That's what the founders of the U.S. did. Read the Declaration of Independence. I'm not, however, recommending revolution right now. But yes, we are one step closer to it. That's frightening. I know I'm getting off track, but if Romney gets elected, we will be dependent upon his moral integrity, hoping he will do what he knows is the right thing by fighting Obamacare to its core. He must never give in. But this is what concerns me. He's tried to install his own healthcare system back in Massachusetts, and he's flip-flopped on several issues. Also, he's a Conservative, not an Objectivist or Libertarian. Granted, I'd take anyone else over what Obama is. But still, we're screwed. I don't think Romney is a person of integrity. He will say whatever he can to get elected. He only cares about his own political career, even if it means selling out to Obama's minions. This election coming up is going to come down to electing a dictator or electing a person too weak to stand up to tyranny.
showing 2 of 5
show all
|
You may find Dr. Diana Hsieh's analysis of this topic useful: The Morality of Vigilantism
Oh, and a bit of a nit: Rand did not say that (it is a line commonly attributed to Burke).
Rand is actually emphasizing the opposite: it is not that evil wins by default when good men do nothing -- for that would indeed mean that evil is powerful and must be actively defeated. Rather, Rand's point is that evil is fundamentally at odds with reality and therefore fundamentally impotent; it necessarily gains any power it might bear from the only place available: the good.
You're going to have to explain that a little further. I agree evil is at odds with reality, but that is not the reason why it's impotent. Evil is impotent when action is taken to counteract its effect. Evil does win in this world, and it's when the good does nothing. Look at Eric Holder. We all know he's guilty, but is he going to face jail time? No. We live in an unscrupulous world, and I am not ashamed to admit I get satisfaction when people like Budd Dwyer give to themselves what they deserve. Evil is given vitality from the immoral and the unscrupulous.
Somewhere I know there is a flaw in my logic, but I can't find it. Can you tell me where I'm wrong?
"Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us." Ayn Rand said this, and I think it perfectly resembles Burke's quote.
The next quote down in the lexicon is more illuminating: "I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it."
This is simply not the same message as Burke's. Doing nothing for evil is precisely what Rand is saying one should strive for -- because it is fundamentally impotent. Burke is saying doing nothing against evil is what lets it triumph -- because it is NOT fundamentally impotent.
I understand now. Evil will collapse all by itself amongst rational men. But Ayn Rand said another quote which contradicts this theory. "A building has integrity just like a man. And just as seldom." She's implying that there are more men who aren't completely virtuous, as compared to say, people like John Galt. So, in a sense, evil does have vitality to it, simply because men WILL yeild to the irrational. It is in this sense that I support vigilante justice.