Because common sense is easily applied...
If you are in a restaurant
[...]
The problem is that there is really no need to defer to some distant judicial process in common sense cases with wide agreement if we have actual wide agreement, and the universality of deferment in even the clearest cases opens the door to unlimited bad behavior. On the rare occasions that I have touched someone up among witnesses I've never had any response other than "he had that coming." This is a result of two factors:
1) I don't, and do not advocate for, "ride the edge." I only respond when the point is absolutely clear cut.
2) I don't run in crowds where "violence is always wrong no matter what" is an accepted standard. I operate in a world where some self righteous overly sheltered prig who said "A physical attack is not justified against someone who's just being a jerk" would be mercilessly mocked in every possible way until they either left or they hit somebody.
As I said before, we kind of agree on the
principle. I just say that it's not feasible in practice, because people see the world in a VERY subjective way, and nearly everyone will usually consider whatever puts them in an uncomfortable situation as unjust even if it's blatantly untrue - to not speak about people who will just purposedly abuse any system they can.
Even as people who share the same opinion on this subject, and who have largely similar opinions on what is moral and what is not, I'm pretty sure there is lots of times where you would consider someone deserves the punch, and I would consider he's actually right and the other person deserves it, and vice versa.
In the same principle (though obviously at a much higher level of seriousness), I don't find revenge to be blamable. I find the "if you hit back you're just like the attacker" argument to be utterly stupid and immoral. If someone sees his loved ones to be attacked/maimed/killed unjustly by an attacker who then flee, he has my blessing to jump on the attacker and slaughter him. I still consider that the law should forbid revenge out of practicality, because in practice, people tend to see themselves as innocents and others as guilty.
Another example, to link with the topics : except in comic books or for clinical perverts/sadists, few people think of themselves as actually "evil", and Nazis see themselves as "good". I'm not a moral relativist, so I call BS on this and don't consider that all claims of morality are equals. But I'm painfully aware that most arguments I can use to basically mean "I'm right, you're wrong" are based on a definition of morality that I hold right, and that all the process could be turned around and used against me if we use theirs (that I hold wrong). And that it's pretty easy to find a crowd of people who would rather believe their definition of right and wrong than mine, and in which your example of "people did agree with who should be punched in the face" would be reversed. They might be wrong according to us, but if we use the "common sense of a group of people", then... they would be right.
All this to say : my theorical morality (that deserved retribution is JUST) is one thing, but my practical take on justice (based on the knowledge that people will tend to abuse whatever power they have) is rather different.
And Akka, just for the record I have little doubt that in real life you aren't someone who would ever be a clear case for punching in the face, and I think you would probably get along just fine in the world I inhabit, so please don't feel like any of that was meant to insult you.
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of times where some people in a group definitely thought I should have been punched in the face
Samely, there is lots of people I thought deserved to be punched in the face ^^
