I've been thinking about how people generalize all the time when trying to figure out if something is moral. Let's say I enact some form of vigilante justice, like shooting some criminal at large whom I know will repeat heinous acts if unstopped. Naturally I would find myself on trial and would face some variation of the argument: so do you believe, then, that everyone should take the law into their own hands?
It seems that this generalizing argument/question flows naturally from the demands of logic. But I think it's a perversion of thought and distortion of morality. Why would Justice be so limited a concept that it must bow in all instances to some simply statable, spiffy sounding, ostensibly proceeding from almighty logic claim like the generalizing one? I feel that I can answer "no" to this question without surrendering my belief that what I did was right.
It shouldn't involve me in any contradiction (nor would it be a huge deal if it did) to claim: what I did was right, but I don't believe that everyone should be taking the law into their own hands. Perhaps because there would be too many mistakes, for example. But I know that I didn't make a mistake. I'm positive of it. Can you, as a philosopher, believe me, without trying to slam dunk me away with a spiffy sounding "how can you be sure, if others can't be sure?" or some other spiffy sounding logical argument?