... 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.
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.
