Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap
I'm sure that most of us have been hurt by someone before. And I'm sure that most of us have, to greater or lesser extents, contemplated (however briefly) the satisfaction (short-lived, of course) that might be obtained by seeking some sort of retributive action against the person that hurt us. Some of us have actually pursued such action beyond the brief fantasy stage. Often times though, we're held in check by some sort of moral underpinning that tells us that regardless of how badly we've been hurt, seeking to hurt the other person in return is not the best answer.
Perhaps it's not the best answer because we're afraid of escalating a situation and being retaliated against for our retaliation. Perhaps it's not the best answer because we know that seeking to hurt the other person reduces us to the level in a fundamental way. If there's moral high ground to be had, we lose it pretty quickly when we stoop to petty vindictiveness. Other times, it's not the best answer because we'd hate to be thought of as that kind of a person. The kind of person that seeks revenge and carries it out. We hate to get our hands dirty.
Which is why it's so handy that you can pay someone else to get their hands dirty on your behalf, I suppose.
Frankly, I'd think that whatever satisfaction one might get out of repaying an eye for an eye would be muted significantly if you were simply paying someone else to extract revenge. And I'm curious as to the type of person that, based on a few questions, is willing to go out and humiliate or otherwise mess with someone they don't even know. I'm curious, but I'm kinda hoping I don't meet or discover that sort of person.
Perhaps it's not the best answer because we're afraid of escalating a situation and being retaliated against for our retaliation. Perhaps it's not the best answer because we know that seeking to hurt the other person reduces us to the level in a fundamental way. If there's moral high ground to be had, we lose it pretty quickly when we stoop to petty vindictiveness. Other times, it's not the best answer because we'd hate to be thought of as that kind of a person. The kind of person that seeks revenge and carries it out. We hate to get our hands dirty.
Which is why it's so handy that you can pay someone else to get their hands dirty on your behalf, I suppose.
Frankly, I'd think that whatever satisfaction one might get out of repaying an eye for an eye would be muted significantly if you were simply paying someone else to extract revenge. And I'm curious as to the type of person that, based on a few questions, is willing to go out and humiliate or otherwise mess with someone they don't even know. I'm curious, but I'm kinda hoping I don't meet or discover that sort of person.
Very interesting story, but how can they live with themselves? I sure couldn't. I don't think I believe in an eye for an eye....just doesn't sit right with me. SO, these 2 women don't have very good morals in my opinion... what else is there to say??? You always have interesting blogs to read, Love it! Keeps me out of my head if only for a few minutes, and that is nice
Reply to this
They could probably justify their actions in numerous different ways. Might not be very convincing to you or I, but it might help them sleep at night.
They might actually believe that they are dispensing some form of justice. They are righting wrongs of some perceived or actual nature. Sort of like watered-down Batman or Spiderman, operating outside (or just barely within) the law while still providing their clients with the satisfaction of having gotten even.
They could take a very pragmatic approach, saying that if they aren't technically breaking the law, then there can't be any moral questionability. In other words, they legitimize their actions according to the law (rather than laws being legitimized by the actions of the people - which is the historical source of laws before we all became enlightened enough to create laws to suit the whims of any given minority or wealthy donor). In a pragmatic approach, they simply argue that if they aren't breaking the law, they aren't doing anything wrong. Again, not particularly convincing, but it may work for them.
And they might choose to argue that they aren't really doing anything wrong. They're exercising their right to free speech (since that's the only example of a retribution act that the article mentioned). Once again, providing they demonstrate that they have made a good faith effort to not engage in libel or slander, they might slip by without legal repercussions. But the odds are - as the story hints at - that eventually they're going to be shut down for violating some sort of libel or slander law (or some other law that is 'bent' in order for them to cater to their clients and make a buck).
I would think these ladies would need to be either extremely naive, or extremely cynical. Either they genuinely believe what they are doing is right, or they don't really believe that much of anything is right, and therefore they are free to operate as they see fit. Either way, I'd hate to tick them - or one of their clients! - off!
Reply to this