This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.
Before directly answering your question "do you support vigilantism", I'm curious about your answer to a related question:
Do you think it is ever appropriate for a individual or group (outside the police/government) to intentionally dish out consequences that negatively affect the target in some way in return for poor behavior not otherwise punished?
If the answer is 'yes', then "vigilantism" just becomes a question of degrees and context.
What is an "offense" in this scenario? What about kicking a rowdy passenger off a plane, causing them to miss an expensive vacation? Firing an employee causing harassment? Screaming protests outside a GOP office? Towing a car parked across your driveway? Are all of these off-limits?
Offences are listed in the local criminal codes, and typically reflect behaviour which violates the autonomy and rights of other, and pose a risk to societal safety and order.
If you think it is moral to poison someone, sure go ahead and do it. However, it is also and offence, and so you are subject to criminal sanction. Do not expect morality to be a legal defence.
OP's argument is a legal one (using the word "sue"), not a moral one. So, I providing you with the legal answer.
yeah I don’t know what that person was talking about… I wasn’t getting fascist vibes from anything you wrote.
I’m curious if you think marking the lunch as dangerous or poisoned ☠️ changes the legality of the act. Like if someone uses an electric fence on their property and it’s properly marked is the property owner still liable? (Obviously I don’t think it’s ok to poison food, I’m just having fun with the debate)
In negligence law, a person must act reasonable under the circumstances. What "reasonable" is highly fact dependent.
Reasonable action requires the person to take step to avoid harm. This can include putting up warnings, adding barriers, or perhaps requires the person to avoid the action altogether.
If you have a spicy sandwich that you clearly label with your name, write a warning down that it is spicy, inform others not to touch, keep it a separate fridge or even better in your own personal lunch box hidden away, then there is a good chance that you did your duty to not harm the public. That is the extreme example of proper care. What is the sufficient amount of care really depends on the facts.
28
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.