Vigilantism: Volition

A young boy named Michael Myers was severely abused by his father, so he decided to become a criminal.

Myers grew up with fantasies about creating general mischief and would carry out bizarre pranks and acts of vandalism on Halloween Eve. He did this between the ages of 14 and 24.

This all changed one Halloween (the year he turned 25) when a small boy dressed up as a clown approached him and asked him (when he noticed Myers toilet-papering the town Church), "Why are you doing bad things on Halloween?" Michael was heart-broken and decided he would try to change his attitude.

Michael Myers decided he would become an ethics/etiquette vigilante named Deadpool. Every Halloween, he would dress up in a tailor-made red-and-black mask and outfit and carry two wooden swords and run around while kids were trick-or-treating and say loud and bizarre things like, "Why don't I love Halloween as much as God does!?" When kids would ask him what he was doing and why, Michael/Deadpool would reply, "I'm just learning about the strange magic of Halloween."

Michael/Deadpool was very happy with himself, because he thought that this new 'angle' on mischief and vigilantism would help him repent for his earlier malicious deeds.

He decided to send an editorial to the town newspaper about why he called himself Deadpool and why the American science-fiction horror film The Brain Eaters reminded him of basic vigilance.

Was Deadpool paranoid or intriguing?

====

While I was originally going to post this in the Fan-Fic section, I thought it would be interesting to present it in General Discussion to stir thoughts about vigilantism cynicism.

What do people think about vigilantism controversies and the 'science of self-destruction?'

The Brain Eaters

From a Psychological standpoint, vigilantes are incredibly intriguing-especially since they often wear a mask. If you hide behind an idea, or an archetype, you're more prone to do things socially uncouth...

That in itself is weird. Since the law is a social construct, then why is it often seen at odds with man's "true nature," since a mask "hides the face, but frees the soul." So how does something man creates (society), come against a man's destructive desire? The "id" is seen as a suppressed collective consciousness that all of mankind share. Yet Jung and Freud consider the Id to be destructive, impulsive, (and possibly evil) in nature.

Assuming Jung and Freud are right, vigilantism is not only society's conflict, but an internal psychological conflict. I personally disagree with Freud and Jung. Why would a collective, universal mentality edify social order (laws and stuff) one minute, and become deviant from it the next?

You mentioned how Michael/Deadpool has ethics and etiquette. That's another issue. Ethics is more about morality. Etiquette is more about social normality. For example, you often see people speeding on highways. Form an etiquette standpoint, you would speed; it follows the social norm, and prevents things like road rage and accidents. From an ethical standpoint, however you would stay on the speed limit because it's the law, and breaking the law would be immoral.

So what's better: to do the "moral" thing and keep to the speed limit (despite possible danger and aggression), or to do the social norm, and break the law?

This topic has interested me greatly. Excellent thread.

@ajax24601: Breaking the law is just that: breaking the law. It has as much moral significance as you give it. What you can be sure of is that there are punishments associated with being caught breaking a law that is enforced. The risk of punishment and possibly other consequences of breaking the law (such as the erosion of social norms that agree with it, should you care about that) must be "weighed" against the consequences of failing to follow the contradicting norm (after we've decided on satisfactory rates of commensuration between the two). Morality can and will transcend law and etiquette through inclusion of them. In Michael's case, I imagine etiquette and norms are a major factor of his "ethics" (a term which, left unreduced, I think hints at an unexamined sense of how things should be).