Vigilante Justice

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='10 July 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1278783839' post='2140802']
I don't know what value Joe Average is taking away from the movie. Ask Joe Average. Though if I were to venture a guess, I'd say it's something along the lines of, "Gee, where can I get me a bat-pod?"[/quote]
Probably. That and "torture is moral."

[quote]Personally, I found [i]The Dark Knight[/i] intelligent as well as entertaining, but that's just me.
Though, now I'm forced to agree the film would be vastly improved if Batman had instead shared a chocolate milkshake or something with the Joker, and non-coercively discussed their differences.[/quote]

You aren't forced to agree. Truth must [i]freely[/i] be accepted as it is perceived by the intellect. I think [url="http://kevinrobinson.wordpress.com/2006/10/05/on-torture-nazi-germanys-greatest-interrogator/"]Hanns Scharff[/url], probably the most effective interrogator of the 20th Century, would agree that the best way to get the information you want is to treat the other person like a human being, not a dog toy that you crush until it makes the noise you want to hear.

Discuss? They didn't discuss anything. Batman beat the tar out of his captive.


[quote]Obviously, I don't share your anarchist ideology which regards "coercion of the will" as the ultimate evil.[/quote]
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said coercion of the will is the ultimate evil. Coercion of the will is [i]a grave evil[/i]. An "infamy," as John Paul II reiterated. As a grave evil, it is absolutely off-limits as a tactic.



[quote]I suppose miscreants should be left free to exercise their will to murder, rape, rob, and commit mayhem all they like, rather than "coerce" their precious little wills, or be "mean" to them.
Innocent human lives be dam[font="Arial"]ne[/font]d.[/quote]
Now you're simply misconstruing the meaning of "coercing the will." Stopping someone from murdering, raping or robbing never requires coercing the will, even if stopping them is accomplished through the use of violence. If I imprison, or even shoot a murderer or a rapist, I haven't coerced his will in the slightest. I've rendered him physically incapable of continuing his attack. It may [i]contradict [/i]his will, but it does not [i]coerce[/i] his will. As you can see, there is a substantial difference.

Innocent human lives may not be protected through immoral means. Anyone who tries to do so is setting [i]himself[/i] up to be damned.


[quote]Again, your anarchism is not with the mind of the Church.
[/quote]
Only your tenaciously distorted understanding of "my anarchism" is against the mind of the Church.

~Sternhauser

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 July 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1278867675' post='2141204']
Probably. That and "torture is moral." [/quote]
Except, as I pointed out earlier, the movie doesn't condone torture, even in the loose sense you define it. By beating up the Joker, Batman played right into the Joker's hands in the movie. In this movie, the Joker is a Satan figure, whose ultimate goal is corrupt good people to bring them down to his level.
You miss the whole point of the movie, which explores the questions of how one can fight evil without falling into evil oneself.

But in any case, I'd think a self-described anarchist would have bigger fish to fry than Batman movies.

[quote]You aren't forced to agree. Truth must [i]freely[/i] be accepted as it is perceived by the intellect. I think [url="http://kevinrobinson.wordpress.com/2006/10/05/on-torture-nazi-germanys-greatest-interrogator/"]Hanns Scharff[/url], probably the most effective interrogator of the 20th Century, would agree that the best way to get the information you want is to treat the other person like a human being, not a dog toy that you crush until it makes the noise you want to hear.

Discuss? They didn't discuss anything. Batman beat the tar out of his captive.
[/quote]
I was being ironic. "Why so serious?"


[quote]Don't put words in my mouth. I never said coercion of the will is the ultimate evil. Coercion of the will is [i]a grave evil[/i]. An "infamy," as John Paul II reiterated. As a grave evil, it is absolutely off-limits as a tactic.[/quote]
As you yourself noted in another thread, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the Church, didn't see things your way.




[quote]Now you're simply misconstruing the meaning of "coercing the will." Stopping someone from murdering, raping or robbing never requires coercing the will, even if stopping them is accomplished through the use of violence. If I imprison, or even shoot a murderer or a rapist, I haven't coerced his will in the slightest. I've rendered him physically incapable of continuing his attack. It may [i]contradict [/i]his will, but it does not [i]coerce[/i] his will. As you can see, there is a substantial difference.

Innocent human lives may not be protected through immoral means. Anyone who tries to do so is setting [i]himself[/i] up to be damned.[/quote]
You can't logically argue that beating up a bad guy to protect innocent lives is immoral "coercion," while putting a bullet in one for the same purpose is not. In either case, his will has been violated by force. Your position is internally contradictory and incoherent.



[quote]Only your tenaciously distorted understanding of "my anarchism" is against the mind of the Church.

~Sternhauser[/quote]
Yeah, whatever.

"Introduce a little anarchy . . ." ~ the Joker

Edited July 12, 2010 by Socrates

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='11 July 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1278892394' post='2141379']
As you yourself noted in another thread, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the Church, didn't see things your way.[/quote]

That's fine. St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor of the Church, also didn't see the Immaculate Conception or mutilation as punishment "my way." The Church and the Catechism promote the first, and condemn the latter.


[quote]You can't logically argue that beating up a bad guy to protect innocent lives is immoral "coercion," while putting a bullet in one for the same purpose is not. In either case, his will has been violated by force. Your position is internally contradictory and incoherent.[/quote]

My position is neither internally contradictory nor incoherent. Allow me to explain why. You are trying to slip in a hidden third term. The end of saving lives by beating up an aggressor does not come through coercing his will, it comes through [i]directly[/i] rendering him physically incapable of continuing his attack, thereby saving lives. You are equating that act to the act of using violence as a [i]means[/i] of coercing the will of the person in question, whereupon the information extracted will [i]then [/i]be used to save lives. The free will is a natural and inviolable quality of a human person. [i]Coercing[/i] that which is by its essence free is a contradiction of human nature itself.

Coercion versus physical stopping (contradicting) are acts which use entirely different means to achieve the same end. These acts have entirely different moral qualities. Physically stopping someone, which does not achieve its end through coercing the will, is moral. Stopping an evil action through the means of coercion of the will is gravely immoral.

There is no coercion of the will involved in putting someone in prison or shooting him to physically prevent him from harming others. His will is absolutely intact. Only his physical ability to carry out his evil will has been restrained.

~Sternhauser

Edited July 12, 2010 by Sternhauser

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Socrates' date='11 July 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1278892394' post='2141379']
"Introduce a little anarchy . . ." ~ the Joker
[/quote]

I love that quote!!!

Or at least that scene in the movie.

[Gregorius]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebI8H5nq5L4[/media]