The Devils in the Advocacy

On another post someone argued a point by stating, "let me play devil's advocate, here..." and continued with his line of reasoning.

He was defending one point: that a man should not kill another man on the street no matter what he admits to having done, an action which may result in a death penalty conviction in a court of law under different circumstances (ie: not in the street).

Since the man admitting guilt admitted to child molestation/rape other people in the discussion attacked the "devil's advocate" for defending a child rapist. 

The man spent the rest of the thread trying to convince people he was not defending child rape, but instead was defending the actions of the man who did not kill the confessed child rapist as soon as he heard the confession.


It seemed lost on the other people in the discussion that the "devil's advocate" was defending the guy's actions who did not kill on word alone. As far as the others were concerned: child rape is a capital offense, even if (a) the rape has not been proven and (b) the confessor has not undergone a trial.

We can all agree that child molestation or rape is bad, extremely bad. Yet I find it odd that the same people who are outraged when a Muslim country's citizens mete out mob justice are the same people who advocate for vigilante justice. It appears as though the only difference in what constitutes "justice" is what the individual believes is righteous.

It's mind boggling that people live one life while condemning others for living the same life just because they disagree with how they life their life.

We're supposed to live in an enlightened age, a more civilized time. We're supposed to be living in a nation governed by the rule of law, and yet having a simple discussion with two opposing viewpoints ostracizes and demonizes the people or persons who take on a dissenting opinion. 

What happened to being objective? What happened to considering different perspectives? Ask any lawyer if she or he has to agree on the principles of their client in order to represent them in litigation.

Wikipedia defines Devil's Advocate as:

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

 Nothing grows without first overcoming opposition. That works in biology, in psychology, in relationships, in self, in everything on this planet. More or less, it's a universal maxim. It is the basest law of nature: eat or be eaten, overcome or perish.

In a more barbaric world, that generally meant the strongest reign supreme, but in our modern age, in a world ruled by laws, overcoming opposition generally means working with the strength of an idea versus other perspectives, not merely strength of arms. And in to test the validity of an idea or argument, there needs to be at least one opposing idea. Hence our adversarial legal system which relies on arguments from two different sides to determine logical rational judgement.