So, I was watching the movie "Home Alone 2". For those who've never seen it, it's basically about a kid foiling a couple of burglars who threaten to harm him with obvious slap-stick shenanigans. However, I've always had a single issue with this series of movies and others like them: they glorify fairly unprovoked revenge. While the burglars do threaten the kid, he does pretty much torture them in return. A list, he: lights one of them on fire, severely burns another, electrocutes them, burns a rope they are climbing on so that the fall several stories, and bludgeons them in various ways, and of course he is laughing throughout the whole ordeal. To be frank, even though it is supposed to be funny and all that, it has always disturbed me slightly how people seem to agree with him. I'm not saying defending your property is wrong, even to the point where a homeowner could injure an assailant fatally. What do you think? Do you think this kind of attitude is okay? Is it moral to revenge yourself upon someone greater than they have wronged you?
Well I think the kid may have some sort of mental disorder. probably stemming from the fact his parents are forgetful and irresponsible.
Surely they're victims of some kind of slapstick rather than sadism; i'm guessing it wouldn't have been funny (assuming it actually was funny) if the brat just shoved them out of the house, found they weren't actuallty flammable enough and sent them on their merry way.
No revenge is moral. However, this is more of an immediate retaliation, which is different. And, yes, shit like this does take it way to far, and is disturbing. But then again I am a pacifist, so I'm probably just some crazy hippy to all of you.
I don't believe in revenge, but like shaw pointed out it's more of an immediate retaliation. Also I do believe that people have a right to defend themselves if there in a life and death situation.
Oh boy, you guys must be really bored if you are analyzing the morals of a godamn kids movie. It a bunch of slapstick comedy that little kids tend to find funny. Home alone was just trying to do what the lonnytunes did, but with real actors. They where not glorifying revenge,or teaching little kids that torture is good, it's just a bunch of cartoony humor for children. You guys really need to get out more.
I am a HUGE supporter of Castle Laws. That being said, I am sure that this child would probably be seized from his parents for neglect reasons and placed in a mental instituation. He has shown fasciantion with... disturbing practices. Many of which would be greusomely fatal in real life. Beyond that, he would at least be placed in a juvinial system, owing his clear refusal to follow the law. While I disagree with Shaw's pacifism, he does bring up an important part of the law, specifically in Castle Laws. He points out that the actions of the child were hardly spontaneous in any degree, but rather purposefully pre-meditated. In most of the Home Alone series films, the child makes no attempt whatsoever to contact the authorities. In some, he even manages to trap one or more of them in an immoble positions from which he can at least prove to the police that there were intruders. Instead, he takes on the role of the vigilanty and proceeds to place both himself and his neighbors at risk in the spirit of dealing with the criminals himself. This may be true.
What ethical train of thought are you using? Egoism would endorse revenge. Most other like virtue ethics and deontology would denounce it, if that is what you were thinking of. You might be able to justify it under consequentialism but it would be a little shaky as justification would be too subjective.
In today's day and age the Robbers could easily just sue him in a court of law and get all his families stuff, But honestly he enjoyed it a little too much even if some of them where funny (Like the Tarantula scene in the first one) the truth is that kid shows signs of growing up to be a pretty evil fuck, or at least laughing when an orphanage burns to the ground. Though in real life, that kid would shit his pants and then get shot and raped.
Hey there was one time when a robber sued a home owner because he failed to put up a sign warning him of a pool and he fell in, or another where a robber fell through a house he was breaking into and sued for alot of money.
Or you could call the cops after dropping the brick, rather then setting up more traps bent on mutilation rather then capture.
What revenge, all they did was attempt to break in and failed. The kid was doing it for his sick entertainment, hell if he was 15 he would have a hard on the entire time.
The Vibe got from the Movie was him basically proving that he can do things himself and is independent, so he had to prove himself, almost to himself so he can have a sort of inner peace. Plus it is also a Comedy and not to be taken seriously.
