IntroductionIt is a common expression in popular culture that there are things that change a man forever; things which a man can never return to the same person. The phrase is meant to warn people about the complex nature of revenge and vigilantism. Two authors philosophize in a text to know if the Dark Night should definitively end the reign of the Prince of Chaos through murder. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay This article will use the arguments contained herein to determine whether one should avenge the murder and torture of one's loved ones by killing the culprit. The newspaper argues that one should not take full responsibility for avenging the crime, but rather leave it to the authorities, as they are better placed to carry out such acts. Model citizens should be law-abiding (Moncada). That said, the idea of ​​taking the law into their own hands should be foreign to them since it exposes them to the same legally justified treatment of the original transgressor. In the text should Batman kill the Joker? , the authors argue that according to three philosophical positions, the prankster could either be killed or delivered to the authorities by Batman. According to utilitarianism, killing the Joker would have ideal results since the number of lives saved would be greater than those doomed by this decision. However, the other two philosophical positions oppose this creed (White and Arp). Deontology, for example, does not diminish the importance of punishing the Joker but rather states that it is not Batman's place to carry out the punishment. The position is that the State is best placed to punish the Joker. The final school of thought, value ethics, prefers to examine the effect of vigilantism on the character of the attacker. As stated previously, the text provides philosophical grounds for either course of action. According to the authors, while there are "good reasons to kill the Joker, in terms of saving innocent lives, there are also good reasons not to kill him, based on what killing him would mean for Batman and his motivations, its mission and its character. “The choice quote is relevant in determining the correct course of action in the event a serial killer is apprehended after killing his family for fun (White and Arp). Indeed, in the same way, there are good reasons to execute the serial killer, because such an action would remove the humanity of a psychopath likely to engage in future murder. However, personally killing the attacker would mean that the avenger would stoop to the same level of cruelty that the attacker resides in. This would invariably tarnish the person's character, rendering him incapable of taking the moral high road. This article and the main text affirm the importance of punishing individuals who threaten to send civilized people back to the Dark Ages (Rosenbaum and Sederberg). However, both works argue that it is not up to the individual, citizen, to pronounce the verdict and inflict the punishment. The document thus takes a position against vigilantism, even if it recognizes the importance of involving citizens in the correction of offenders. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Vigilantism and personal vengeance should not be endorsed by society or the state since both lead to actions that threaten the same law that protects all citizens. People who have been victims of harmful offenders »..”