How is self defense consistent with double effect?

[fakename]

That is, how is self-defense consistent with the point of double effect that says that the harm cannot be the direct cause of the good end at which you aim?

After all, when you aim to defend yourself don’t you aim to also (in certain cases) kill your attacker?

Perhaps you don’t aim to kill your attacker in any case but only to preserve your own life, but how is this end not causally connected to the death of the attacker?

 

[yukonbrad]

That is, how is self-defense consistent with the point of double effect that says that the harm cannot be the direct cause of the good end at which you aim?

After all, when you aim to defend yourself don’t you aim to also (in certain cases) kill your attacker?

Perhaps you don’t aim to kill your attacker in any case but only to preserve your own life, but how is this end not causally connected to the death of the attacker?

Self defense does not need mean kill. In terms of a personal assault it means the use of force sufficent in stopping the attack which may fall short of killing the attacker.

 

[Edward_H]

Self defense is a direct pursuit of the good. The intent is good. And there is no other way to
pursue that good.

Here’s an excellent 4 minute video on double effect.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFUxeg1qkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[superamazingman]

That is, how is self-defense consistent with the point of double effect that says that the harm cannot be the direct cause of the good end at which you aim?

After all, when you aim to defend yourself don’t you aim to also (in certain cases) kill your attacker?

Perhaps you don’t aim to kill your attacker in any case but only to preserve your own life, but how is this end not causally connected to the death of the attacker?

I find it very consistent with the principal of double effect. The goal is never to kill the attacker, but rather, stop the attacker’s bad actions. In some cases, that may mean hurting the attacker, or even killing the attacker. Not because you desire to kill them, but because you desire to preserve your own life and the lives of others.

 

[carn]

Perhaps you don’t aim to kill your attacker in any case but only to preserve your own life, but how is this end not causally connected to the death of the attacker?

When an attacker is harmed during attack, the attacker caused the harm. It does not matter whether the direct physical cause of the harm was the attacker tripping while sneaking towards the house, braking his leg while kicking in the door, having his hand ripped of due to his gun exploding or moving such way that he stands in the path of a bullet fired by a defender (as long as the firing of the bullet did not change the status of him into attacker as well, e.g. excessive use of force). In all case guilt is with the attacker.

 

[fakename]

Self defense is a direct pursuit of the good. The intent is good. And there is no other way to
pursue that good.

Here’s an excellent 4 minute video on double effect.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFUxeg1qkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

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

 

[fakename]

I find it very consistent with the principal of double effect. The goal is never to kill the attacker, but rather, stop the attacker’s bad actions. In some cases, that may mean hurting the attacker, or even killing the attacker. Not because you desire to kill them, but because you desire to preserve your own life and the lives of others.

But if someone were to ask “how do you intend to preserve your life” you would answer “by killing the aggressor”. And so it follows that you use evil to gain good.

But in what sense is death “evil”? In double-effect is the “evil effect” supposed to be morally evil or physically evil?

And in double effect, is the bad effect supposed to be indirect and is the causality itself an essential causality or is it some tangential causality? For instance, (e.g. for my question about causes) is the cause spoken of in the double-effect of self-defense essential/by definition (The attacker died because his heart stopped) or is it tangential (the attacker died because I stabbed him)?

 

[Edward_H]

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

No, they are co-incident. As the threat is removed, protection of the innocent is achieved.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not even sure that double-effect applies to the case of self-defense. I’ll have to read up on it, but I don’t think killing in direct defense is an evil at all, so double-effect needn’t be invoked.

Peace and God bless!

EDIT: I take it back. Double effect it is!

 

[fakename]

No, they are co-incident. As the threat is removed, protection of the innocent is achieved.

Wouldn’t that make it even worse? After all, double-effect only exists because we don’t want a good to subsequently come from an evil so much less do we want the good to instantaneously come from it.

 

[ValPal]

That is, how is self-defense consistent with the point of double effect that says that the harm cannot be the direct cause of the good end at which you aim?

After all, when you aim to defend yourself don’t you aim to also (in certain cases) kill your attacker?

Perhaps you don’t aim to kill your attacker in any case but only to preserve your own life, but how is this end not causally connected to the death of the attacker?

Various ancient fighting systems have very well developed philosophies about this very issue. The goal is not to harm, or kill, other people. The goal is simply to use the necessary force to address the issue, and that can be as simple as walking away. If you’re actually killing someone, it should be ONLY because their intent was to kill you (or those you’re protecting) and they are using the force necessary to achieve that goal.

I don’t even know if it is double effect either, because theoretically it is the person causing the harm that is choosing the level of reaction.

 

[Edward_H]

Wouldn’t that make it even worse? After all, double-effect only exists because we don’t want a good to subsequently come from an evil so much less do we want the good to instantaneously come from it.

An action leads to 2 threads of effects. My point stands.

I think Just War thinking nicely helps sort through self defense.

Authority, Intent, Last Resort, Proportionality of Response, discriminating b/n combatants and non combatants.

 

[fakename]

Various ancient fighting systems have very well developed philosophies about this very issue. The goal is not to harm, or kill, other people. The goal is simply to use the necessary force to address the issue, and that can be as simple as walking away. If you’re actually killing someone, it should be ONLY because their intent was to kill you (or those you’re protecting) and they are using the force necessary to achieve that goal.

I don’t even know if it is double effect either, because theoretically it is the person causing the harm that is choosing the level of reaction.

If it is not a matter of double-effect then Aquinas would not have implied that it was, but he did. And if killing someone doesn’t come under double-effect as a bad result to be justified, then it follows that it comes under it as a good-in-itself or as a good to be aimed for. But it can’t be good in itself to kill neither can it be the end sought because then killing would be extrinsically bad and therefore, killing can be made bad only by being connected with something worse. However, that is wrong since we don’t often say that killing is bad because it leads to something worse than death but because it leads to death. And indeed, we generally don’t think that something is worse than death.

Also, the words “necessary amount of force” have different meanings in different situations. In the case of self-defense if someone again asked, “how do you intend to use the necessary amount of force” you would say “by causing this man’s death”. So again, there is the same problem.

 

[ValPal]

Also, the words “necessary amount of force” have different meanings in different situations. In the case of self-defense if someone again asked, “how do you intend to use the necessary amount of force” you would say “by causing this man’s death”.

If someone states this they are not trained in nor understand self defense. They are taking the most aggressive action possible to end the confrontation, which might not be appropriate.

This “double-effect” is different from the other examples of double-effect I’ve seen on this forum. The common example deals with the potential results from taking medication that can have the side effect of expulsion of a fertilized egg. It’s important to note that the fertilized egg has no say in the matter.

In the case at hand, it is the aggressor (or the equivalent of the fertilized egg in the previous example) that decides his fate, not the person defending. Ultimately, it is the person that attempted to cause harm that harmed himself.

 

[carn]

If you’re actually killing someone, it should be ONLY because their intent was to kill you (or those you’re protecting) and they are using the force necessary to achieve that goal.

Thats wrong.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Self-Defense
"It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the aggressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive our neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means: if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense. "

So killing in defense of property can also be acceptable.

So its not only when the attacker threatens a life.

 

[carn]

Ultimately, it is the person that attempted to cause harm that harmed himself.

Therefore its called suicide by cop, because in the specific case of a cop, defense is not optional, but mandatory, so any attacker knows the cop will shoot (and cops are trained to empty their guns into attackers, no nonsense like shoot to disable) and therefore this is a rather reliable suicide method.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop

The attacker is the cause of harm in cases of self defense. No one else.

 

[fakename]

Therefore its called suicide by cop, because in the specific case of a cop, defense is not optional, but mandatory, so any attacker knows the cop will shoot (and cops are trained to empty their guns into attackers, no nonsense like shoot to disable) and therefore this is a rather reliable suicide method.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop

The attacker is the cause of harm in cases of self defense. No one else.

How can the attacker be the person who decides his own death in anyway except metaphorically? In any case it is not the case that the voluntary will to die makes the killing acceptable. What makes it acceptable is if the bad act directly causes the good effect and I don’t think that anyone has shown that it doesn’t.

For instance, what does “necessary amount of force” mean in relation to double-effect or how does it modify any aspect of the morality of self-defense?

 

[edwest2]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66"

Peace,
Ed

 

[fakename]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66"

Peace,
Ed

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

 

[ValPal]

Thats wrong.

Nope.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Self-Defense
"It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the aggressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive our neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means: if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense. "

So killing in defense of property can also be acceptable.

So its not only when the attacker threatens a life.

Even the above passage notes extreme necessity.

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?