Is Crimefighting Ethical?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

In America at least' date=' the private citizen fighting crime as it happens is legal, not that that has anything to do with ethics.[/quote']I can think of nothing more ethical than fighting crime and evil; nor anything less ethical than forbidding it. Nations and places which prohibit self-defense or the defense of others are acting immorally.

 

See signature below.

[Yansuf]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

I find many of these posts absurd, because many of the posters do not seem to know what a simple english word means. Vigalante means someone who hunts down and punishes criminals, or those he/she thinks are criminals.

Self defense is not vigalantism. Even though the press and some politicians proclaim cases of it as such, it isn't.

Making a citizen's arrest on someone and turning him/her over to the police is not vigilantism, even though the press and some police and politicians call it such.

 

David Blue recently wrote:

"By the way, vigilantism, done right, works. Sydney's trains at night used to be unpleasantly menacing and dangerous. Nothing was done about it. The Guardian Angels (working on an American model) started making patrols on the trains. (I was too busy at the time to do anything about that but make donations and say thanks.) This was Totally! Unacceptable! Vigilantism! said the police and the government. While fear on the trains hadn't been a problem for the authories, self-help was. Expensive and extensive reforms soon made the trains safer and more pleasant to travel on. (Though of course no credit to vigilantes!)

The Angels soon faded out - their job done. Was what they did ethical or unethical? The answer might depend on whether you habitually travelled by train or limousine."

 

I strongly object to catagorizing citizen patrols as vigilantism. Unless the citizens inflict their own punishment on law breakers caught, rather than turning them over to police, they are NOT acting as vigilantees.

 

It has been many years since I followed comic books regularly, but I do not recall many vigilantee superheroes. The Punisher was the first that I recall set in modern times.

Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, etc. turned criminals that they caught over to the police. The did not kill them, horsewhip them, or ride them out of town on a rail. They were/are not vigalantees.

Even Batman didn't punish criminal; he may have frightened them, but he turned them over to police unharmed.

 

So please try and not misuse the word vigalantee. Enough people in the press and government do already, we don't need to assist them.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Oxford English Dictionary:

 

vigilante

· n. a member of a self-appointed group of people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.– DERIVATIVES vigilantism n.

– ORIGIN C19: from Sp., lit. ‘vigilant’.

 

Under this definition, probably quite a few superheroes could be considered to be vigilantes. I wouldn't, but I can see how many could. (Once the supers starts beating up speeders, underage drinkers, and delinquent fathers for committing crimes, they've definitely crossed the line.)

[David Johnston]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

I think several different issues are being conflated.

 

Would it be unethical to follow someone who you have reason to think is a violent criminal and wait for him to commit a crime, then stop the crime?

No. It would be stupid, and it would look suspicious but it wouldn't be unethical.

 

Would it be unethical to wander the city like Spider-Man and wait for your psychic powers to tell you that someone is in danger and then try to save them? Not if you had real psychic powers.

 

Would it be unethical to sit in a mansion and wait either for the local politicians to call you because they have a problem they can't handle or the villains to obligingly attack you in your house (which is what happened at least half the time to Avengers. Why go out and look for crime when you can order in?)

 

Now the consequences of large numbers of masked unaccountable amateur law enforcers wandering the strees would doubtless be dire. A lot of them would screw up, get killed or get carried away. On the other hand the situation would have to be pretty dire before someone with superhuman or nigh superhuman abilities was sufficiently afraid of the authorities that he'd think he had to wear a mask. It would not be unethical to wear a mask while using one's powers if government policy was to lock up or enslave all known users of powers.

[Yansuf]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Oxford English Dictionary:

 

vigilante

· n. a member of a self-appointed group of people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.– DERIVATIVES vigilantism n.

– ORIGIN C19: from Sp., lit. ‘vigilant’.

 

Under this definition, probably quite a few superheroes could be considered to be vigilantes. I wouldn't, but I can see how many could. (Once the supers starts beating up speeders, underage drinkers, and delinquent fathers for committing crimes, they've definitely crossed the line.)

 

The Merian Webster English Dictionary, the Encapta World English Dictionary, and the Wordsmyth English Dictionary all include punishing as part of the definition.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

A citizen's arrests constitutes "legal authority" to me.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Oh sure, but wasn't that the point of the thread? If running champions, while I like a bit of realism, I assume that secret identiies are usually safe unless you make no effort to maintain them, that wearing your underwear outside your clothes does not provoke derision, that bad guys are usually caught doing obvious crimes and that known heroes are always given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Genre conventions, man.

 

We actually had a GM who ran a (short-lived) campaign who played "realistic" with the genre and we ended up with situations like the one where my character (code against killing, don't ask me why, I should have known better, but I wanted to play a hero, dammit) haymakers a robot. It goes through a wall, into a family's living room, doing 16-18 d6 to the kiddies inside (add in some more KB and we have kiddie jam). OK, perfectly "realistic", but... do you really need that? As an aside it turns out the "robot" was an armoured suit and I'd killed the guy inside, too. Even though the police dispatcher had said "rampaging robots". The GM said I should have checked.

 

That game (realistically enough) turned into a bad version of the Authority (long before that was written) with the public fleeing screaming at the sight of the "heroes" (because it usually meant major propert damage was about to ensue) and the "heroes" talking about acceptable losses "OK, I killed some kids and put their parents in the hospital, but if I hadn't, dozens might have died, etc etc".

 

Strangely enough we ended up taking over a small african country and trying to make a decent state out of it, but it was mostly so we would have a place to live, rather than altruism.

 

cheers, Mark

 

And for one campaign of finite length, I don't see that as a bad thing, but rather as one of the many explorations of the concept of "superheroes". If it's not what the players are looking for and the GM still keeps trying to feed it to them, then that becomes a problem.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Keep in mind that most comic supers stop villains in the act. Batman either catches the mugger/rapist/robber/supervillain in the act or investigates first and then swings in to kick butt. Most four-color comics also use a similar formula - "Villain X is attacking downtown' date=' let's go!" That's the whole point of patrolling in city-based games - you're catching the bad guys when there's no doubt of a crime being committed[/quote']

 

Sure - and that's why I noted above in my Champions game, the Heroes are almost always confronted with bad guys in the act. At that point you are not talking about vigilantism, but simple (and legally defensible) response: a citizen's arrest, if you will.

 

But I draw a line between that and storming into someone's house and beating them up - even if you are *sure* they are guilty of commiting crimnal acts. That's not a citizen's arrest - that's assault.

 

cheers, Mark

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Thanks, Zornwill, for the thread necromancy – I think this is a fascinating discussion!

 

Herbert Hoover used the FBI to combat Martin Luther King' date=' Jr.[/quote']

I missed this the first time around but... wrong Hoover. You're thinking of J. Edgar.

 

So although society has decided that these things are not illegal, you'd take it on yourself to take them down?

 

See the comment above - you've just become a supervillian.

Exactly; you're just crossed the line from enforcing the laws to being a law unto yourself, based on your own personal opinion of what constitutes justice. In other words, you’re essentially saying that might makes right.

 

As with many genre conventions, superhero vigilantism only really works if you assume 1) the regular authorities are incompetent, uncaring, +/or corrupt, and 2) the vigilantes are infallible, both practically (they never make mistakes) and morally (they always do the right thing). Even if you believe the former is true, you’re still putting a lot of faith in the latter.

 

Suppose that instead of me or you being asked "what do I do?" it was Mister Incredible? His answer would probably not be "avoid her as best you can, and pretend you're not home."

His answer would more likely be: "Don't pay. I'll wait with a camera. Your home will not be torched. And I don't care about her criminal boyfriend."

But that’s not vigilantism, that’s little more than an Enhanced Neighborhood Watch, with spandex. Of course, it also assumes that taking a picture of the boyfriend “in the act” is going to completely resolve the problem. Even if you do, and even if the boyfriend goes to jail for it, nothing to stop Crazy Woman from having another Crazy Friend torch the apartment the second your back is turned. She is, after all, Crazy.

 

Another genre convention that doesn’t hold up well in the light of the real world: most problems in life can be easily solved, typically by thumping the right person.

 

Often what that boils down to is that the powerful take little interest in injustices - past' date=' ongoing and in prospect - done to the powerless. [/quote']

And that’s perhaps the ONLY truly justifiable excuse for vigilantism there is IMHO. You could argue that the Abolitionists who ran the Underground Railroad in the 1800s were vigilantes in a sense. But that's a pretty extreme case; for every William Sill, there are a lot of John Browns out there.

 

To quote Frank Castle: "Not vengeance ... [vengeance is what the madwoman takes when she's "insulted" by the refusal to lend her money or by similar affronts] ... punishment."

That’s a totally subjective distinction that only works if one is so supremely arrogant (like Mr. Castle) as to believe that he and he alone knows who needs/deserves to be punished.

 

By the way' date=' vigilantism, done right, [i']works[/i]. Sydney's trains at night used to be unpleasantly menacing and dangerous. Nothing was done about it. The Guardian Angels (working on an American model) started making patrols on the trains.

The Guardian Angels are a good case study. They got started in New York at a time when budget cuts had severely cut down on police patrolling, especially in certain poorer neighborhoods (or at least that was how some people saw it). How much direct good their patrols did is still debated, tho personally I think they did help. More importantly, they helped focus attention on the problem until the politicians were forced to do something about it. Sounds like much the same thing happened in Sydney. So yeah, give the GAs some credit. But the GAs main objective was simply to deter crime by being a visible force, not to actually stop crimes or hunt down criminals. If that’s vigilantism at all, it’s with a small “v” not a Capitol “V”.

 

As an aside, I have recently started seeing GAs in Denver – I had no idea they were even still active in the US outside of maybe New York.

 

Keep in mind that most comic supers stop villains in the act.

Yet another genre convention that doesn’t hold up well IRL: crime is easy to spot, and if you just run around on rooftops long enough sooner or later a bank robbery will happen in front of you. So any viable “Real World” powerset had better include some way of sensing crimes (be it precognition, spider-sense, super-hearing, or just a good police scanner) AND some way of getting there well ahead of the police.

 

I can think of nothing more ethical than fighting crime and evil; nor anything less ethical than forbidding it. Nations and places which prohibit self-defense or the defense of others are acting immorally.

Well yes, but Vigilantism goes well beyond just defending others or stopping crimes when we see them – that’s already a right (and, I would argue, a duty) we all have as citizens. Vigilantism, as your definition points out, means appointing yourself to enforce the law (or your own moral code) because you believe the authorities aren’t doing the job. And again, it all goes back to believing that you know what’s best for everyone.

 

Saying “If evil happens in front of me, or I hear of an injustice taking place, I will do what I can to fight it” is noble and admirable, with or without powers. So is saying “I’m going to dedicate my life to fighting crime.” But saying “I’m going to dedicate my life to fighting crime, but being a cop would cramp my style, and I don’t care about what society thinks anyway because my morality is better than yours, and I don’t need any oversight because I’m never wrong...” – there are other words to describe that. Most of them aren’t nice words.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Oxford English Dictionary:

 

vigilante

· n. a member of a self-appointed group of people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.– DERIVATIVES vigilantism n.

– ORIGIN C19: from Sp., lit. ‘vigilant’.

 

Under this definition, probably quite a few superheroes could be considered to be vigilantes. I wouldn't, but I can see how many could. (Once the supers starts beating up speeders, underage drinkers, and delinquent fathers for committing crimes, they've definitely crossed the line.)

"Law enforcement" can be seen to be what the police and not the courts do, which is what most supers do in comics, hunt down somebody believed for good reason to be a bad guy and force him into a prison situation with the authorities. They (the bad guys) may or may not get off in the courts and the law "enforcer" (the super/vigilante) may not revisit it, not invalidating their earlier pursuit of justice.

 

To another post, while I agree that we have to have a common definition of "vigilante" no one definition is "stupid," the way society uses the term has a powerful meaning. And by the way, the Guardians Angels did, rightly or wrongly, have a reputation of performing their own punishment of criminals.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

The Merian Webster English Dictionary' date=' the Encapta World English Dictionary, and the Wordsmyth English Dictionary all include punishing as part of the definition.[/quote']

I would certainly stake the Oxford against any of those. Regardless, the disagreement itself between them points out the oscial confusion on the issue.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

The Merian Webster English Dictionary' date=' the Encapta World English Dictionary, and the Wordsmyth English Dictionary all include punishing as part of the definition.[/quote']I would assume that punishment is included in any rational definition of law enforcement. Otherwise it constitutes no more than a tongue lashing by the authorities. We've seen ample evidence of how little miscreants are bothered by being yelled at.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

I would assume that punishment is included in any rational definition of law enforcement. Otherwise it constitutes no more than a tongue lashing by the authorities. We've seen ample evidence of how little miscreants are bothered by being yelled at.

"What is punishment?"

 

If being turned into the police in a manner resulting in trial, does that constitute punishment?

 

I just bring it up because many would see the police as "law enforcers" though the only punishment they administer is the apprehension (which may or may not stand).

 

Anyway, semantics aside, I don't know that most people here are opposed to someone who is superpowered who brings in people consistent with the standards for a citizen's arrest.

 

But as a question, aren't citizens' arrests such that you cannot use force to bring the suspect in? That would be very different from what superheroes can do and does that constitute vigilanteism?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

"What is punishment?"

 

If being turned into the police in a manner resulting in trial, does that constitute punishment?

 

I just bring it up because many would see the police as "law enforcers" though the only punishment they administer is the apprehension (which may or may not stand).

 

Anyway, semantics aside, I don't know that most people here are opposed to someone who is superpowered who brings in people consistent with the standards for a citizen's arrest.

 

But as a question, aren't citizens' arrests such that you cannot use force to bring the suspect in? That would be very different from what superheroes can do and does that constitute vigilanteism?

A trial is not punishment; it is an evaluation process to determine if punishment is warranted (at least in modern times).

 

I see no reason force or threat thereof cannot be used to make a citizen's arrest, although that may vary by jurisdiction. But certainly I can use a gun to hold a burglar until police arrive and take him into custody. In Texas, it is totally legal to use even deadly force in order to stop a felony in progress. IOW, if I see a man actually committing rape, I can legally kill him right then and there. No need to tell him to stop, no reading him his rights. Bang! Just don't hit the victim.

 

It may open other complications such as relatives of the deceased felon suing in civil court, but it's technically legal and shouldn't cause any grief with the legal system.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

A trial is not punishment; it is an evaluation process to determine if punishment is warranted (at least in modern times).

 

I see no reason force or threat thereof cannot be used to make a citizen's arrest, although that may vary by jurisdiction. But certainly I can use a gun to hold a burglar until police arrive and take him into custody. In Texas, it is totally legal to use even deadly force in order to stop a felony in progress. IOW, if I see a man actually committing rape, I can legally kill him right then and there. No need to tell him to stop, no reading him his rights. Bang! Just don't hit the victim.

 

It may open other complications such as relatives of the deceased felon suing in civil court, but it's technically legal and shouldn't cause any grief with the legal system.

So back to what you said before, then I would say that it would be quite rare for a superhero pre-Punisher to be a vigilante, using the context you state above.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

I see no reason force or threat thereof cannot be used to make a citizen's arrest' date=' although that may vary by jurisdiction. But certainly I can use a gun to hold a burglar until police arrive and take him into custody.In Texas, it is totally legal to use even deadly force in order to stop a felony [i']in progress.[/i] IOW, if I see a man actually committing rape, I can legally kill him right then and there.

Clarification: I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK no state allows citizens to use deadly force just to stop "a felony" -- even police don't have that right. You can only use deadly force to stop "a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury" to yourself or another. So in your above example, yes. (I think most modern courts would agree that rape constitutes serious bodily injury.) But you can't just shoot that bank robber unless you have good reason to believe he's about to hurt/kill someone.

 

However, going with your example: using force to stop a rape is probably allowed in most jurisdictions. Using a gun as a threat to hold someone until the police arrive is also probably kosher in most places. (Although if he ignores you and runs away you generally can't just shoot him in the back unless you have reason to believe that he's going to kill or seriously injure you or someone else in the process.)

 

But if you spend the next week looking for the guy, collecting evidence that you do not turn over to the police, and go hunt the guy down yourself -- then IMO you've just crossed the line from citizen's arrest to vigilante.

 

No need to tell him to stop' date=' no reading him his rights....[/quote']

I believe many states - can't speak for Texas - require some attempt at a verbal warning unless you genuinley believe (and can convince the jury) that you do not have time to do so. But you're certainly right about not reading him his rights; in fact attempting to do so could actually get you in trouble for impersonating an officer. (And in any event police aren't actually required to give Miranda warnings on arrest -- a million TV shows notwithstanding -- but only when they start to question a subject, whether he's under arrest or not.)

 

Sorry for the legal nitpicking in the middle of what is supposed to be a discussion of ethics. But since it came up.

 

Just call me BigDamnAnalRetentiveLegalHero. (Actually - please don't.)

[casualplayer]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

There's Texas ethics and then there's the rest of the world. You can beat a shoplifter with a baseball bat in Texas. Pretty sure that the He Needed Killing law is still on the books there, where if you can prove that the dead guy was scum it's considered justifiable homicide. Not saying that any of this is bad....

 

Unless powers included some key to certainty (Telepathy, Clairsentience, Detect Scumbag Drugdealer, etc) most people's ethics would not allow them to use force to enforce the law. We have been too exposed to reasonable doubt, to the point of inaction. Only zealots have the blissful certainty to continually believe that their end justifies the means.

[David Blue]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

However' date=' going with your example: using force to stop a rape is probably allowed in most jurisdictions. Using a gun as a threat to hold someone until the police arrive is also probably kosher in most places. (Although if he ignores you and runs away you generally can't just shoot him in the back unless you have reason to believe that he's going to kill or seriously injure you or someone else in the process.)[/quote']The statement quoted above is the essence of why I think that a legalistic perspective doesn't have the ethical weight to trump the moral mandate of a superhero (if such a creature existed) to act in an unequivocal and forceful fashion to protect people from (moral) crimes whether the law permits it or not.

 

I've said elsewhere that I use a jihad video test to decide if a character is really a superhero. If you were about to star in a jihad video like Nick Berg or many others, and the possible superhero was aware of it, would you be saved? If so, this might be a superhero. But if they might decide not to get involved, this character is not a superhero, or is at least a flawed one.

 

If you had a signal watch and one quick, covert chance to call one character before the Allah hu Akhbars end and the neck-sawing begins, who you gonna call? That character is the truer super-hero, regardless of who has the mightier powers, the cooler (or skimpier) costume and the bigger sales.

 

"Rape" will do as a substitute for "jihad video". The character who, like a guarantee from God coming good, will intervene to save you from rape, using as much force as it takes to save you, is the superhero. I hold that to be morally valid, regardless of legality. (And trust me, I'm not about to reverse my opinion on this.)

 

As a statement of law as it is, globally, this is fine: "using force to stop a rape is probably allowed in most jurisdictions." That's the spirit: an inclination in one direction and then another or toward both sides at once, shifting with jurisdiction, and coming down on the side of convenience. For example we have the janjaweed rapists acting with government approval but one doesn't want that sort of stuff to happen to the wife of somebody important. Or, Saddam Hussein had professional rapists on staff (and we can be sure that using force to stop them at work would have been illegal in Iraq), but on the other hand (etc.) In the general case, for the good order and smooth running of society and the convenience of the authorities ... yeah, sure (shrug), to protect the victim from an atrocious fate is probably permitted. If it suits those who define and interpret the law.

 

My final word is that I regard that legalistic sort of view as weak in ethics, while I regard the mandate of the superhero (if such existed) to act as, say, Mister Incredible would, to be well-founded morally.

[input.jack]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

A true superhero does whats right. If whats right isnt whats legal, he then turns his attention to changing that situation (change the law, change the public perception, bring down the evil machine that supports the illegal action. Whatever). AFTER the would-be victim has been saved.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

So back to what you said before' date=' then I would say that it would be quite rare for a superhero pre-Punisher to be a vigilante, using the context you state above.[/quote']I'd agree. The Punisher undoubtably qualifies as a vigilante. IMO he's not a hero at all; much less a superhero. He's just an obsessed man who kills criminals.

 

Things get a bit fuzzier when you look at pulp era heroes - Tarzan, The Shadow, The Spider, Doc Savage (lobotomized villians), Zorro (written in the early pulp period), very early Batman (carried pistols). Even early Superman comic strips (now in reprint) almost indisputably showed him killing criminals in combat (though never in cold blood). But those were tougher days, when men were men...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

There's Texas ethics and then there's the rest of the world. You can beat a shoplifter with a baseball bat in Texas. Pretty sure that the He Needed Killing law is still on the books there' date=' where if you can prove that the dead guy was scum it's considered justifiable homicide. Not saying that any of this is bad.[/quote']So far as I know there has never actually been a "He Needed Killing" law in Texas. I believe there have been cases where a grand jury refused to indict or it's been used as a defense; but not an actual law. Maybe I'll ask Blackjack; he got his degree in criminal justice in Texas.

 

I can't imagine why shooting a rapist in the act wouldn't be considered ethical anywhere (except maybe Iran, where the woman would probably be shot instead).

[OddHat]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Use of force in rightful defense of yourself or another is considered ethical under any system that doesn't embrace total pacifism. The ethical arguments break out over what constitutes "rightful defense". Legal and ethical are separate issues.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

I'd agree. The Punisher undoubtably qualifies as a vigilante. IMO he's not a hero at all; much less a superhero. He's just an obsessed man who kills criminals.

 

Things get a bit fuzzier when you look at pulp era heroes - Tarzan, The Shadow, The Spider, Doc Savage (lobotomized villians), Zorro (written in the early pulp period), very early Batman (carried pistols). Even early Superman comic strips (now in reprint) almost indisputably showed him killing criminals in combat (though never in cold blood). But those were tougher days, when men were men...

In the borderline pulp era I can see that, true, though I think (?) even Superman and Batman were facing indisputable killers/reckless endangerers when they did use lethal force early on.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

The statement quoted above is the essence of why I think that a legalistic perspective doesn't have the ethical weight to trump the moral mandate of a superhero (if such a creature existed) to act in an unequivocal and forceful fashion to protect people from (moral) crimes whether the law permits it or not.

It wasn't meant to be an ethical point. Several people had brought up legality, and I was just clarifying a few points. I never claimed the "legalistic perspective" was always the ethical one.

[secretID]

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

 

Exactly; you're just crossed the line from enforcing the laws to being a law unto yourself' date=' based on your own personal opinion of what constitutes justice. In other words, you’re essentially saying that might makes right.[/quote']

I think the superhero ethical approach is the exact opposite of might makes right. Superheroes say "I'll fight for what's right (in my view) regardless of how mighty the other side." I think moral relativism - in the form of absolute adherence to the law regardless of its nature - is might makes right. The position supported by the most people, or by the authority, is the right one.

 

"Slavery" and "clitorectomy" are among the many easy counters to that kind of relativism. Regardless of whether one's society accepts either of those, opposing them is right, and opposing them by force is also right in many cases. Would killing Hitler in 1943 have been wrong? Would it only have been wrong for a German citizen? (Side note: As far as I know, the Nazis were not into clitorectomy.)

 

Moving into the absurd, if the law required us all to participate in child abuse, I assume that most of us would at least think about breaking it. BTW, while that is absurd, it's no more grotesque than the details of the Holocaust and forced clitorectomy.

 

I understand that there are questions regarding collateral damage from vigilante action, but those are independent of the question of whether it's ever moral to break the law.