The Depp Ends Justify the Means:

“To tell the secrets of my prison house,

I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combinèd locks to part,
And each particular hair to stand an end
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine.”

 

Consider Hamlet. Though his father DID instruct him not to rage against his Mother, he was tasked with seeking vengeance on his dad’s behalf, his tragedy that he’d not sought it sooner and with more conviction. If you feel it’s an exaggeration or pretentious to cite Shakespeare here, I can assure you that I have no better words for my emotional position on the matter, and it’s all that I can do to keep from spouting off, maintaining clinical detachment in the handling of moral matters which upset me as the Ghost of Hamlet is tormented by the flames of Hell.

 

I cannot stress enough, though I must often do so: victims are not to be silenced. We who suffer the abuses of a villain are defined by our despair, and those most sensitive of us will never give up seeking Justice.

Well: what would you have him do? Allowing an injustice towards one’s self is to permit injustice as a whole. If truly there are no two ways about it, if the Guilt, though sometimes shared between the parties, can be divvied up and weighed objectively, then to pursue the proper retribution for this Guilt is noble, and to show some cowardly acceptance is to part with Honour, not to honour either party. There is no self-interest in seeking Justice, whether for one’s self, for those one loves, or for the Nation and its People.

Yet all too often we EXPECT some form of tolerance. When Andy of The Office spared his adversary Nellie, since she quoted Shakespeare at him, he was victimized again for showing Mercy. Yet the fans insist he OUGHT to have ALLOWED his station to be selfishly usurped, though there was nothing warranting this move on Nellie’s part.

We learn a form of very coddled, pacifist morality in youth, one which sells movie tickets to the kids by painting vengeance in a Buddhist light. Yet do the Buddhists not believe in Karma? Is there not a Buddhist Justice? What about the classical conception we inherit of a righteous vindication? It is not a mere CONCEIT, born out of relative self-interest, to seek accommodation for one’s suffering; it is a DUTY to Society, for any social order which renounces Justice is oppressive and, ironically, unmerciful.

Yet this persists: we let our modern villains get AWAY with things, except when biased interests would serve to benefit by making an example of a victim. If you want to know why “Social Justice” is a train wreck, this is why: we don’t believe in Justice, but in Mob Rule, not in Victims but in Symbols, and the rest are merely casualties of war. A man’s life is expendable, except when that man represents a TRIBE. Good people die each day, and often due to ignorance and evil, yet we’re taught to recognize the few who represent a GROUP.

Wherefore? Our Rights as Individuals are precious to us, are they not? If we truly BELIEVE in Justice, we must seek it for ourselves. If we truly BELIEVE in Goodness, we must seek reward for it, for if it’s not rewarded, any Evil party can oppress the System. It’s like MacIntyre said: Morality must be objective, not emotive. If Depp’s innocent, he cannot be held culpable for seeking Justice. That would be to say:

“TRULY good men want only that which profits others; they would GLADLY give their lives to an abusive party and renounce the fruits of their Good Deeds.”

Yet is it Good that TRULY good men be subjected to this and subject their fellows by example? No. I stand by Johnny Depp, at least to that extent that he deserves his say.

[({M.M.)}]