Rule of law also allows for banality of evil and bureaucratized, monopolized violence. I've seen some other arguments against sympathy in this thread (the murderer was wealthy himself, insurance companies aren't actually the archvillains of healthcare). Those other arguments haven't convinced me, but they certainly complicate the narrative.
A blind appeal to "rule of law" is the one argument that I think is stupid on its face. Law as the sole moral barometer will always result in marginalization and injustice. It is the function of protest, civil disobedience, and yes, sometimes violence, to shape law as a function of morality.
Rule of law says that the law applies to everyone. Living in a republic means we all bear some responsibility for not encoding violence in our laws, and have a recourse if we find evil emerges.
In other words, of course we need healthcare reform but literally killing healthcare leaders is a path to anarchy, not reform.
Those who beg for war usually get more war than they wanted.
This is a frustratingly incomplete analysis of the moral circumstances. It can be true that one finds this person (and the victim) sympathetic, and wants rule of law to be upheld.
It’s possible that we have a different definition of sympathetic. For me, I mean that his actions feel justified and I would have no problem with him repeating that.
Supposing you accept that definition of sympathetic…Are you generally supportive of more public assassinations? Who is on your list? What about if your list is different from the generally accepted list?
in a court of law I would say this (while it 100% should be) is seldom the case. every lawyer will tell you that their number one priority is to make jury sympathetic of the defendant. the number two priority is to find find someone else they can blame the crime on which is also very clear in this case who(what) that might be
If that principle was upheld that CEO and people like him and the investors he was a willing tool for would not even begin to exist. This coming from the privileged classes is pretty much "do as I say, not as I do", preaching wine while drinking water.
> It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
And in some countries, there are laws that say apostates should be executed.
If I lived in such a nation and my brother was killed for being an atheist, I hope I would have the guts to avenge him.
"Rule of law" is great, but when it fails, vigilance is still an option for justice.
> Rule of law is the foundation for society and murdering someone is not the answer.
on the other hand, the US government seems to have no problem murdering people in other countries who it perceives to be a threat to its geopolitical aspirations, either directly, or indirectly ("acceptable collateral damage")
"Society" also sends millions of innocent young men to the trenches to brutally murder and be brutally murdered by other innocent young men. With shells, machine guns, flame throwers, land mines, bayonets, drones, nerve gas, sniper rifles, and even nuclear bombs.
Not that I find him a sympathetic character. But the concept of "society" is one of the most evil demons to have ever spawned.
> But the concept of "society" is one of the most evil demons to have ever spawned.
Completely agree. If we just lived in little old villages without the support systems for advanced technological systems, people like his mother would have just shrieked in pain while we sprinkled her with various herbs, and he wouldn't even have any idea of shooting someone for the unfairness, because we'd just accept our fates with aplomb.
Knowledge and technology require society to function. The post-Roman people were well aware of what the Romans built and even knew how to build them. What they did not have were the supply chains, large market, a consistent legal system, etc -- these things require a society in order to provide a place in which there can be an economy, that produces things that people need to implement their knowledge.
Do you actually think doctors / nurses would be able to get all they need through small trades / manufacturing?
What they didn't have where slaves to build them ;)
I think that knowledge and technology is much less dependent on "society" than we usually think. But of course it all becomes speculation in the end. The Romans in your example had constant assassinations of the most powerful people of their society. But I get what you mean, and of course you're mostly right.
I just don't see how supply chains for the medicines this man wanted could exist in a non-industrial society. These chemicals are complicated and require detailed production lines. It's not just the direct raw materials but also those necessary for the manufacturing in clean, sterile environments, etc.
Oh please, stop with that. The people who make the laws and enforce them in this country break their own laws constantly and get rewarded for it. I’m happy you think the world is like that, it must be nice.
Trust is the foundation for society. Law can only establish trust under certain conditions, e.g. if blatantly immoral acts that cause suffering to hundreds of thousands of people are made illegal.
> And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
