He had the morale ground.
The detectives couldn’t catch up to him without cheating like crazy. How is this justice? Breaking every law possible just to get close to him. They were beneath him. Even when they had him they couldn’t control themselves to let justice be served.
Legality and morality are different things. Now, I don't think cops should break the law, but there's a difference between the law, morality, and justice. These are not necessarily the same, although there is a lot of overlap.
John Doe murdered people - a lot of people - and he did it in horrifying ways. This is a sick man, a psychopath, and clearly has no moral high ground. Were the detectives right for bending the rules or breaking them? Nope. But that doesn't mean they sank to the depths of John Doe.
John Doe? More like a moral LOW ground low, or an immoral ground, for that matter.
shareHe killed an innocent pregnant woman. No moral high ground in that.
shareAnd several other innocent folks as well.
shareBut in the context of what the OP is saying, the others he killed were not innocent. They were each guilty of a deadly sin.
shareYeah, but you have really missed the point of the seven deadly sins. Look at these specific sins: pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. Why not murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, child molestation. Of the top of my head, I can think of any number of sins far worse. So could anyone.
The seven deadly sins, as Somerset notes in the movie, IIRC, originate in medieval sermons, in which priests tried to teach their congregants how to live a virtuous life that will allow them to remain good Christians, worthy of God's grace, and thus, get to heaven. The seven deadly sins were corrupting lifestyle choices that will lead you off the straight and narrow path, and ultimately corrupt you. These are not crime sins, of the sort that warrant punishment by secular authorities, just bad life choices that will corrupt you and lead you astray. As such, they do not merit death as a penalty. John Doe is unequivocally in the wrong, and has no moral justification for his acts. He is insane, and a multiple murderer, nothing more.
While the cops did cut corners and did things that they shouldn’t, it all pales in comparison to John Doe forcing a man to rape a woman with a blade dildo.
shareCan you explain the morality in murdering Tracy mills and the obese shut-in?
It might be more interesting in know why you think John Doe was morally superior to his victims.
He wasn't, in fact he accepted it so he included himself with the other víctims to be punished.
The obese was guilty of not care about himself. Tracy was effectively innocent, that's why John then offers himself to David to be executed by him.
This is what happens when you get your concept of morality from ancient books written by ignorant superstitious primitive morons.
Someone outsmarting law enforcement to avoid getting caught doesn't mean they aren't committing evil acts.
I wonder how many of them are around, besides well obvious ones like Mein Kampf from Adolf Hitler?
shareI was raised on a diet of fairy tales and action movies where good defeats evil and evil dies, so I got my morality from those areas albeit reality just doesn't often work this way much at all.
shareFollowing the rules isn't the same as justice. And even if it was: John Doe broke a hell of lot more rules. No moral high ground by any definition.
shareYou're whats wrong with this world.
shareHe had the morale ground.
The detectives couldn’t catch up to him without cheating like crazy. How is this justice? Breaking every law possible just to get close to him. They were beneath him. Even when they had him they couldn’t control themselves to let justice be served."
Worked for Dirty Harry in catching the Scorpio Killer
It's really stretching to determine that John Doe has moral high ground over the cops who bend the rules a little to catch him. John Doe is a monstrous, time bomb monster, whose aim is to murder more victims, so he must be stopped at all costs. He deserves to die, one way or another.
How does murdering people establish the moral high ground in this case?
share