How is self defense consistent with double effect?

[carn]

Nope.

Even the above passage notes extreme necessity.

If you put “only” in your sentence its wrong as soon as there is a 1 in a million exception, in which killing an attacker not intending to kill is acceptable:
"If you’re actually killing someone, it should be ONLY because their intent was to kill you (or those you’re protecting) "

That sentence excludes killing to defend property. Cat encyclopedia considers killing in defense of property with some caveats and killing in defense of chastity (meaning killing someone trying to rape i guess) without caveats if its the only option of defense acceptable. Often neither thieves nor rapist intend to kill, yet killing them might (for the former) or is (for the later) as only self defense option moral.

But let me ask you, what did Jesus mean when he said to turn the other cheek? Did he mention there was an exception for material goods that I missed?

That could also be argued about killing a would-be murderer in self defense. Anyone suggestion how self defense is still acceptable in light of these words?

I understand it, that minor infractions must be tolerated, but if something is a gross violation of what is Right (e.g. turning Gods house into a bazaar), then use of force is acceptable (e.g. whipping the traders out of Gods house), though not mandatory, unless its ones job (e.g. a cop seeing someone trying to commit murder has to shoot, if its the only option - otherwise he would sin)

 

[ValPal]

That could also be argued about killing a would-be murderer in self defense. Anyone suggestion how self defense is still acceptable in light of these words?

A would-be murderer is some that is going to murder you. Self-defense is justified, because killing this person is the minimum necessary to protect oneself.

I understand it, that minor infractions must be tolerated, but if something is a gross violation of what is Right (e.g. turning Gods house into a bazaar), then use of force is acceptable (e.g. whipping the traders out of Gods house), though not mandatory, unless its ones job (e.g. a cop seeing someone trying to commit murder has to shoot, if its the only option - otherwise he would sin)

The Temple incident, is not self-defense, it is discipline. Furthermore, discipline DID NOT involve killing people.

 

[carn]

A would-be murderer is some that is going to murder you. Self-defense is justified, because killing this person is the minimum necessary to protect oneself.

And why should it be different with some thief stealing something valuable or a rapist?

Why not simply agree that for property self defense, even lethal, could also be justified?

The Temple incident, is not self-defense, it is discipline. Furthermore, discipline DID NOT involve killing people.

I considered the general aspect of using force. Turning the other cheek could be interpreted as “why dont you also use the room over there to barter?”. But that is not what turning the other cheek means.

And its just with attacks, turning the other cheek does not mean one has to tolerate a thief stealing something worth an entire year income. One has to tolerate only minor property damage and people damaging property to survive.

 

[ValPal]

And why should it be different with some thief stealing something valuable or a rapist?

Why not simply agree that for property self defense, even lethal, could also be justified?

First, I do not equate life with material objects, regardless of what they are.

That does not mean that if I try to stop someone and they use lethal force, I will not use lethal force in return.

And its just with attacks, turning the other cheek does not mean one has to tolerate a thief stealing something worth an entire year income. One has to tolerate only minor property damage and people damaging property to survive.

I’m not going to kill someone over impermanent, material objects. Such objects come and go. I personally believe it is damaging to the spirit to have that kind of attachment. Even the religious recognize that; that’s why they shun such attachments.

 

[Bill_7154]

There are different laws in different states when it comes to some issues that may relate to self defense. For example, with home break in’s some states have ‘stand your ground’ laws, other states dictate you have a ‘duty to retreat’ or words to that effect.

I THINK in some states you have the right to protect your property. Not my state. You have the right to protect your life, but not your property. Someone jumps in your car and is trying to start it. You have a gun. You better not go out there and confront him with the gun. The law wants/demands you stay out of it and call 911 and let the guy drive away in your car.

In other words, someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night. My first response is supposed to be escaping out of the house myself. I am NOT supposed to grab a gun and find the person in my house and confront him.

In my state, if someone breaks into a house and is unarmed and the homeowner shoots him, he will likely be facing some trouble with the law.

Just wanted to put that out there so people are aware of what the laws are when you live.

 

[carn]

First, I do not equate life with material objects, regardless of what they are.

Self defense is not about choosing the action that deals less damage to the rights in question. Otherwise you would make even defense of life a case of doubt. Why should a 85 year old having a deadly cancer be allowed to kill a 21 year old attacker, if self defense is justified by dealing damage which is smaller than the damage caused by the attack?

Self defense is not about comparing the damage the attacker does to the damage the attacker suffers.

That does not mean that if I try to stop someone and they use lethal force, I will not use lethal force in return.

I’m not going to kill someone over impermanent, material objects. Such objects come and go. I personally believe it is damaging to the spirit to have that kind of attachment. Even the religious recognize that; that’s why they shun such attachments.

No normal person is required to act in self defense, especially in the generally fuzzy case of defense of property (i just refer again to the many caveats catholic encyclopedia list, which are absent in case of defense of life) is required defend himself. Not defending oneself can also be the more moral bevhavior. So if you say you will not use lethal force to defend property even if its acceptable, thats perfectly ok (i might do that as well).

But that does not mean that lethal force is in general and always wrong.

@Bill 7154
You are correct to note the differences in secular law. I tried here to argue what the catholic position is and the catholic position does not totally exclude lethal force in defense of property.

In Germany lethal force to defend property is theoretically allowed, but often in practical cases it is often difficult for the defendent to convince the court that first there was no less severe alternative way to defend oneself and to avoid the loss of property (a common point is that the use of lethal force could be threatened first, which often might scare the attacker to flee) and that second the property was so important that the loss had not be tolerated. Especially the later is a quite a grey area depending strongly on the individual opinion of the judge. Therefore in Germany its better not to use lethal force in defense of property.

Regarding the US laws, the caste doctrine laws make a lot more sense than the laws of the state you live in, because they seem to be devised by theoretizing secular college people (namely people without families). Raising ones wife and maybe 2-3 children in the middle of the night to escape silently from ones own house (after all maybe the invader wants to attack your family instead of just stealing something) potentially to flee in the dark through uncomfortable weather in light clothing? And how to check whether the attacker is armed and what his intent is?

I consider such laws immoral, by breaking into a house somebody lives in in the middle of the night, one is already threatening that persons lives.

The only thing castle doctrine laws are a bit too lazy is that some waive any requirement of the defender, if its possible without danger to himself, to warn the invader that he is armed and will defend himself. But i prefer laws that err in favor of the law abiding people instead of laws erring in favor of criminals.

 

[Edward_H]

Self defense is not about choosing the action that deals less damage to the rights in question. Otherwise you would make even defense of life a case of doubt. Why should a 85 year old having a deadly cancer be allowed to kill a 21 year old attacker, if self defense is justified by dealing damage which is smaller than the damage caused by the attack?

Self defense is not about comparing the damage the attacker does to the damage the attacker suffers.

No normal person is required to act in self defense, especially in the generally fuzzy case of defense of property (i just refer again to the many caveats catholic encyclopedia list, which are absent in case of defense of life) is required defend himself. Not defending oneself can also be the more moral bevhavior. So if you say you will not use lethal force to defend property even if its acceptable, thats perfectly ok (i might do that as well).

But that does not mean that lethal force is in general and always wrong.

@Bill 7154
You are correct to note the differences in secular law. I tried here to argue what the catholic position is and the catholic position does not totally exclude lethal force in defense of property.

In Germany lethal force to defend property is theoretically allowed, but often in practical cases it is often difficult for the defendent to convince the court that first there was no less severe alternative way to defend oneself and to avoid the loss of property (a common point is that the use of lethal force could be threatened first, which often might scare the attacker to flee) and that second the property was so important that the loss had not be tolerated. Especially the later is a quite a grey area depending strongly on the individual opinion of the judge. Therefore in Germany its better not to use lethal force in defense of property.

Regarding the US laws, the caste doctrine laws make a lot more sense than the laws of the state you live in, because they seem to be devised by theoretizing secular college people (namely people without families). Raising ones wife and maybe 2-3 children in the middle of the night to escape silently from ones own house (after all maybe the invader wants to attack your family instead of just stealing something) potentially to flee in the dark through uncomfortable weather in light clothing? And how to check whether the attacker is armed and what his intent is?

I consider such laws immoral, by breaking into a house somebody lives in in the middle of the night, one is already threatening that persons lives.

The only thing castle doctrine laws are a bit too lazy is that some waive any requirement of the defender, if its possible without danger to himself, to warn the invader that he is armed and will defend himself. But i prefer laws that err in favor of the law abiding people instead of laws erring in favor of criminals.

The case for not defending yourself has to be borne from an intention of love, not of cowardice or indifference. Don’t want people to think the bar is somehow lower for ‘normal people’. We are all called to be saints, people who live heroic virtue. Sometimes some ordinary people are thrust into a “red martyrdom”. The rest of us should die a “white martyrdom”. A well lived marriage is for example a white martyrdom.

 

[fakename]

Interesting. Is this to say that the Church does not believe that self-defense needs be justified by double-effect?

How again is self-defense justified by double-effect?

 

[carn]

The case for not defending yourself has to be borne from an intention of love, not of cowardice or indifference. Don’t want people to think the bar is somehow lower for ‘normal people’.

I did not talk about saints and non-saints, the difference is about people having a duty to protect someone else/something belonging to someone else and those who do not have such duty.

A mortage and fire insurance free house owner seeing someone slowly approaching his house, which does not have any other houses nearby, with equipment and intent to burn it to the ground might decide not to use lethal force to defend his property (e.g. in case he owns many houses and would not miss that one) and instead flee. Or he might use lethal force as generally sufficient importance(of course he should if possible try first non lethal means of defense).
A cop in many countries (e.g. germany) would have no such choice, as he is required to upheld the law and the law normaly considers arson attacks against inhabited buildings even if the inhabitants can easily flee to be severe crimes and therefore the cop is required to stop the attack even if lethal force is the only choice. So the cop has no choice.

 

[ValPal]

Self defense is not about choosing the action that deals less damage to the rights in question.

Who said that? Use appropriate force.

Otherwise you would make even defense of life a case of doubt. Why should a 85 year old having a deadly cancer be allowed to kill a 21 year old attacker, if self defense is justified by dealing damage which is smaller than the damage caused by the attack?

You took a statement about an inanimate object and are now talking about an animate one. I don’t get your point.

Self defense is not about comparing the damage the attacker does to the damage the attacker suffers.

Yes it is. Otherwise you have people killing other people simply because they look at them the wrong way.

So if you say you will not use lethal force to defend property even if its acceptable, thats perfectly ok (i might do that as well).

I will defend my property. If the attacker decides to use lethal force against me, it will be met with a force that is enough to stop him.

But that does not mean that lethal force is in general and always wrong.

Lethal force is only wrong when the person defending uses it inappropriately.

This is all common sense. All my comments are made in the context of using appropriate force.

 

[Edward_H]

I did not talk about saints and non-saints, the difference is about people having a duty to protect someone else/something belonging to someone else and those who do not have such duty.

A mortage and fire insurance free house owner seeing someone slowly approaching his house, which does not have any other houses nearby, with equipment and intent to burn it to the ground might decide not to use lethal force to defend his property (e.g. in case he owns many houses and would not miss that one) and instead flee. Or he might use lethal force as generally sufficient importance(of course he should if possible try first non lethal means of defense).
A cop in many countries (e.g. germany) would have no such choice, as he is required to upheld the law and the law normaly considers arson attacks against inhabited buildings even if the inhabitants can easily flee to be severe crimes and therefore the cop is required to stop the attack even if lethal force is the only choice. So the cop has no choice.

Again, I don’t like the lowering of the bar. The number of spectators watching or ignoring threats against others is staggering I think in part because we don’t emphasize the personal obligation to do good, even at the risk of danger. There is a huge difference between the vices of recklessness, cowardice, and indifference, and courage sits in between these vices.

What a crazy exceptional example: “A mortage and fire insurance free house owner”

Let’s look for mean/average examples.

If we are in a position to do good, and out of fear, or indifference, or cowardice, or selfishness we do nothing…we are morally culpable.

 

[superamazingman]

I did not talk about saints and non-saints, the difference is about people having a duty to protect someone else/something belonging to someone else and those who do not have such duty.

A mortage and fire insurance free house owner seeing someone slowly approaching his house, which does not have any other houses nearby, with equipment and intent to burn it to the ground might decide not to use lethal force to defend his property (e.g. in case he owns many houses and would not miss that one) and instead flee. Or he might use lethal force as generally sufficient importance(of course he should if possible try first non lethal means of defense).

Here’s the other thing: it’s not as if in most cases, you’d be sniping the man trying to burn down the house. You’d offer verbal warnings. You’d say “get away, or I’ll shoot.” The would be arsonist would be stepping forward knowing full well what he’s getting into.

 

[PHSshamrock]

The five criteria for the principal of double effect are as follows
Criteria 1: the action causing the dual effect is good or indifferent (i.e., cannot be an
intrinsically evil act).*

Criteria 2: the good end is not obtained by means of the evil effect.
a) Principle of Morality: The end never justifies the means.

Criteria 3: the good end must outweigh evil consequences. There must be a sufficient
proportion of good to evil.

Criteria 4: The evil aspect is not intended in itself, but is merely allowed as a necessary
consequence of the good end.
a) It can be foreseen, as long as it is not desired

Criteria 5: All other acceptable means have been already been exhausted or are not reasonable

 

[fakename]

The five criteria for the principal of double effect are as follows
Criteria 1: the action causing the dual effect is good or indifferent (i.e., cannot be an
intrinsically evil act).*

Criteria 2: the good end is not obtained by means of the evil effect.
a) Principle of Morality: The end never justifies the means.

Criteria 3: the good end must outweigh evil consequences. There must be a sufficient
proportion of good to evil.

Criteria 4: The evil aspect is not intended in itself, but is merely allowed as a necessary
consequence of the good end.
a) It can be foreseen, as long as it is not desired

Criteria 5: All other acceptable means have been already been exhausted or are not reasonable

But self-defense against someone trying to kill you is frequently attained by killing the attacker and to kill is the evil effect (supposedly).

 

[PHSshamrock]

But self-defense against someone trying to kill you is frequently attained by killing the attacker and to kill is the evil effect (supposedly).

Defending yourself is the object of the action- which is not intrinsically evil. Being safe is the good effect, killing them is the evil effect.

 

[fakename]

Defending yourself is the object of the action- which is not intrinsically evil. Being safe is the good effect, killing them is the evil effect.

How I see it: defending yourself is a consequence of killing (and is synonymous with being safe) and killing is the antecedent which causes your safety.

So killing a person (which is supposed to be evil) is the direct cause of your safety. So an axiom of double effect is offended namely that the good effect not be caused by the bad.

But perhaps you should define “cause” “killing” and really all the words of this scenario because then you might have a point that I cannot see otherwise.

 

[antunesaa]

But in self-defense, the bad effect precedes the good (you kill the person in order to defend oneself).

I don’t think so. Suppose you’re being attacked and you fire a shot at someone who intends to fire a shot against you. The good effect causally precedes the bad: when you shoot your attacker, either you’ve already been hit by his bullet, in which case your point is moot, or you have not yet been hit but the good effect has already been achieved, that is, you’re already saved because your bullet is going to prevent you from later being hit. The good is immediate.

 

[GLam8833]

Hi,
Can I jump in here with a comment, what about a person who takes Karate
lessons in order to better defend himself? He learns how to use violence
against any agressors(he is the judge), also he learns how to kill with
a practiced move, when one is not self-controlled(i.e. drunk) it could
have tragic consequences. God said “the one who loves violence * hate”
cf. Ps. 11:5.*

 

[marcvsthebard]

Hi,
Can I jump in here with a comment, what about a person who takes Karate
lessons in order to better defend himself? He learns how to use violence
against any agressors(he is the judge), also he learns how to kill with
a practiced move, when one is not self-controlled(i.e. drunk) it could
have tragic consequences. God said “the one who loves violence * hate”
cf. Ps. 11:5.*

Those of us who have trained to black belt level know we must take care if called upon to use our skills in self defense. Getting drunk is a choice. If you make that choice, you also chose to open yourself to what may come of it.

 

[fakename]

I don’t think so. Suppose you’re being attacked and you fire a shot at someone who intends to fire a shot against you. The good effect causally precedes the bad: when you shoot your attacker, either you’ve already been hit by his bullet, in which case your point is moot, or you have not yet been hit but the good effect has already been achieved, that is, you’re already saved because your bullet is going to prevent you from later being hit. The good is immediate.

I always thought that the defender also asks “how will I be preserved from future attack?” and the answer is “by reason that the attacker is dead”. So a part of self-defense, namely the permanency of the safety secured by self-defense, is secured causally by death.