I don't think it's a matter of raising ('elevating') one's own rights in order to justify an action; rather it's simply a violation of someone else justified by the actions of that other person. So there is no need for anyone else to accept the temporary self-raising of rights, but rather decide how to handle the violations that did occur.
Why the guy in the scenario decided to ditch the drunk's car rather than talking to him first, I don't understand.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@stevenlytle If I understand @larkenrose's reply correctly - 'concerned citizen' (CC) decided that 'violations' had occurred using his own judgment (no reference to 'society'). Your judgment in the circumstances would have been to talk first (my judgment may well have been the same). The point may be though, that whatever our judgments may be, until we transform that judgment into action it makes little difference. Only CC actually moved from judgment to action and so he alone can then take full responsibility for the consequences (if any).