![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
levitySo they're monsters. That's beyond the point. There will always be monsters. It's one of the facts of life. There will always be projects to be crammed at the last minute, there will always be math exams, and there will always be monsters. That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he set up his own private army, sold weapons to a kidnap-for-ransom gang, squandered millions of pesos while the people around him starved to death, ordered the massacre of lawyers and journalists and people who supported someone else running for governor. It doesn't even matter that he laughed after being told of the carnage. All right, so it does, but it doesn't change anything. No matter how much of a monster anyone was, you still had to subject him ("him or her" will take too long, deal with it) to what they call "the due process of the law". Because if you took the law into your own hands there'd be no guarantee that you wouldn't jump off the slippery slope eventually, and then what would happen? Because you had to show that yes, no matter how ambiguous morals seemed at other times there was a right way of getting things done, that you were not about to sink down to the levels of those you were against, that right by might- and in the end anything that isn't shaming aforementioned monster into remorse is some version of right by might- was just plain stupid. (Effective, maybe, but stupid nonetheless.) Because you only took matters into your own hands if and only if everything else has failed, because there was a huge difference between killing a thug who killed for power and killing because a thug who killed for power was allowed the opportunity to do it a second time.
I don't know. (And I'm not even trying to focus on current events anymore.) Maybe it's plain idiotic to qualify what is morally acceptable and what isn't and force people to adhere to those specifications. In a way the law is also might is right, taken far enough back, because it's basically saying that you had to agree with the moral compunctions of whoever was powerful enough to craft the law in the first place. There's no point in saying that everyone has to have a baseline standard of morality, because, well, there isn't. There were times when people who came from the wrong side of the border could be killed and tortured and sold as chattel. There are still places where people of the wrong sex could be treated like property and beaten like- well, like how people used to beat people.
I don't know. All I have are rambling thoughts and what I know in my gut to be right, and that isn't exactly objective. And I don't even want to start on how it's impossible to be completely objective.
I don't know. (And I'm not even trying to focus on current events anymore.) Maybe it's plain idiotic to qualify what is morally acceptable and what isn't and force people to adhere to those specifications. In a way the law is also might is right, taken far enough back, because it's basically saying that you had to agree with the moral compunctions of whoever was powerful enough to craft the law in the first place. There's no point in saying that everyone has to have a baseline standard of morality, because, well, there isn't. There were times when people who came from the wrong side of the border could be killed and tortured and sold as chattel. There are still places where people of the wrong sex could be treated like property and beaten like- well, like how people used to beat people.
I don't know. All I have are rambling thoughts and what I know in my gut to be right, and that isn't exactly objective. And I don't even want to start on how it's impossible to be completely objective.
