• Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    75
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Well I checked the law and there’s no exception for monster hunters. It turns out that if you plan and execute a homicide, you’re a criminal, even if you kill a monster. WHO KNEW???

    The only morally self-consistent way to approach this is as civil disobedience. You gotta take the punishment or you’re not an activist, you’re just another monster.

    • curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      What is legal is not always right, and what is right is not always legal - paraphrased from Algernon Sidley, late 1600s.

      Full Quote

      That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed.

      … the directive power of the law, which is certain, and grounded upon the inherent good and rectitude that is in it, is that alone which has a power over the conscience, whereas the coercive is merely contingent; and the most just powers commanding the most just things, have so often fallen under the violence of the most unjust men, commanding the most execrable villainies, that if they were therefore to be obeyed, the consciences of men must be regulated by the success of a battle or conspiracy, than which nothing can be affirmed more impious and absurd….

      If this were so, the governments of the world might be justly called magna latrocinia; and men laying aside all considerations of reason or justice, ought only to follow those who can inflict the greatest punishments, or give the greatest rewards. But since the reception of such opinions would be the extirpation of all that can be called good, we must look for another rule of our obedience, and shall find that to be the law, which being, as I said before, sanctio recta, must be founded upon that eternal principle of reason and truth, from whence the rule of justice which is sacred and pure ought to be deduced, and not from the depraved will of man, which fluctuating according to the different interests, humors and passions that at several times reign in several nations, one day abrogates what had been enacted the other. The sanction therefore that deserves the name of a law, which derives not its excellency from antiquity, or from the dignity of the legislators, but from an intrinsick equity and justice, ought to be made in pursuance of that universal reason to which all nations at all times owe an equal veneration and obedience.

      A few examples for you (aside from the blatantly obvious and well known like slavery)

      • Jim Crow Laws
      • The Bloody Code (1700s England)
      • French salt tax
      • Vagrancy laws (still exist, and are nowhere near right)
      • Anti-LGBTQ laws - some are historic, some are current
      • Magdalene Laundries
      • the Combination Acts
      • Forced Assimilation laws
      • Window Tax
      • Debt Slavery
      • Three Strike laws
      • Civil asset forfeiture
      • Joint Enterprise laws
      • Extended detention without charge
      • Public protest bans
      • Tied visa systems
      • Sub-minimum wage exemptions

      The list goes on and on and on. Many of which are still legal today, or have been reworked for the same effect and are in effect today.

      Being “legal” or “illegal” is a distinction without merit.

      • Unless you expect “murder” to become legal soon I don’t feel like this is a very strong argument.

        I understand why Luigi did it and the CEO was a piece of shit, but I’m not sure legalizing the execution of these dickheads in the streets is the best answer here. I’d rather see laws outlawing what that CEO did.

        • curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          I don’t believe I said anything of the sort.

          I said legality is a distinction without merit. It is a completely irrelevant element unless you are discussing the morality of a law.

    • Mistakes@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 days ago

      He’s doing civil disobedience by your definition. Literally pleading guilty. In the hypothetical where he receives a pardon, nothing has changed in that regard.