Morality of lethal force in self-defense

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpaghettiCowboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, in the case of a mass or serial killer, there is a strong argument to neutralize the aggressor, using lethal force if necessary.
 
Last edited:
SpaghettiCowboy said:
Wouldn’t it be morally “better” to allow the assailant to succeed in killing me, since if I kill him-- in the act of his committing a mortal sin-- I am denying him at least the chance to repent, receive forgiveness, and save his own soul?
Click to expand...
If you have no serious responsibilities to family or community, and you know that the evildoer will never commit another such evil, then you might be able to make a good case for that.

But you can’t know that he’ll never do it again, it’s not reasonable to assume that he won’t, and no one has no serious responsibilities to family and community (one of which responsibilities is to not abandon others to the will of evildoers).
 
MikeInVA said:
40.png
Inquiry:
Yes, and part of giving us that choice is allowing us to sin.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, what’s your point?
Click to expand...
You asked how it was love to let another sin.
 
MikeInVA said:
And just because you are unwilling to defend yourself does not mean that your killer would repent of the act.
Click to expand...
Good points, but I want to distinguish between an “unwillingness” and a conscious refusal to defend oneself for a higher moral value. I think there’s a subtle, but real difference here.

And I agree that there’s nothing in the action of refusing to defend oneself that necessarily means the killer would repent-- only that he then gets a chance to do so.
 
BornInMarch said:
You’re not a worse person for fighting for your life; the assailant made his own choice.
Click to expand...
I agree.
BornInMarch said:
Apart from that, unless his death is instantaneous, the assailant might still repent in his last moments.
Click to expand...
I have to say, honestly, it bothers me that someone might fully intend to kill me, with malice aforethought, but if I happen to turn the tables in self-defense, he could possibly repent in his last breath. Obviously, there are many challenges in attempting to live Christian principles.
 
Last edited:
Ok, there is a difference in sacrificing your life for a higher cause and merely allowing yourself to be killed, which is how your OP read to me.

Again, preventing the killer from committing the sin in the first place might be better than allowing him to sin and hoping he repents.
 
JerryZ said:
Well many factor do play on that scenario.
Are you single, without family, wife, kids, etc.
If you have a wife and kids do you think you have the responsibility of staying alive to keep providing for them?
Or parents who depend from you.
Click to expand...
Yes, I simplified the scenario, but you are right about other factors. It’s a different dynamic if I have family dependent on me.
 
Beryllos said:
The morality of this scenario is even clearer if we assume that the aggressor is someone you love, for example, a son or daughter.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if the morality is made clearer if it’s your own son or daughter, but perhaps our choice of action is. As a father, I cannot imagine killing my child, even in self-defense.

Many years ago when I was in college, I did a research paper on Catholic “just war” theory. Much of the discussion of this idea revolved around the question of when it is alright to kill. I seem to remember a reference-- perhaps from one of the church fathers-- to the effect that it may be justified to kill someone to keep them from committing a mortal sin that would send their soul to Hell. This is somewhat the opposite of the question I was posing in my original post. (Play that one out in your head-- and then add the dilemma of family.)
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
40.png
SpaghettiCowboy:
It’s a different dynamic if I have family dependent on me.
Click to expand...
No, either it is morally permissible for you to defend yourself or it isn’t. Morality is not relative (again, no pun intended).
Click to expand...
I think we’ve already established that self-defense is morally permissible. (CCC 2264, referenced in the link contained in my first post.)

My question was whether it was a morally superior act (borrowing JJammaz’s terminology posted earlier) for me to give my life in order to offer my assailant the chance to save his own soul by leaving him alive. But the church also teaches that I have a responsibility to provide for my family. By allowing myself to be killed, now I’ve added the question of abandoning my family. That most certainly changes the decision dynamic.
 
Last edited:
To all:

There have been a few comments about my original post setting up a false dichotomy, i.e., kill or be killed. This is true in a sense. I meant to narrow the scenario to limit the options, but I did acknowledge the teaching of the catechism stating that force must be proportionate. In fact, the catechism says that it is unlawful to use more force than that which is necessary to repel the threat.

For the sake of the discussion, however, let’s assume that lethal force is necessary.

After all, I intended the discussion to be essentially an intellectual exercise-- well, mostly anyway…
 
Last edited:
SpaghettiCowboy said:
Wouldn’t it be morally “better” to allow the assailant to succeed in killing me, since if I kill him-- in the act of his committing a mortal sin-- I am denying him at least the chance to repent, receive forgiveness, and save his own soul?
Click to expand...
To give up your own life in the hope of some person’s repentance in the future could only be justified under very special circumstances. The order of charity looms large here… You likely are also responsible for many other people’s welfare, which would now be imperiled by your death.
 
Beryllos said:
Need you ask? The love is in saving a life. The aggressor is a human being, made in the image and likeness of God, loved by God. If he repents, there will be rejoicing in heaven (Luke 15:7, 15:10).

Of course it’s not a sure thing that my killer will repent. It’s an act of faith, hope, and love.

Also it seems likely that a mortal sin has already been committed before the killing. We may assume that the aggressor is in mortal need of repentance before he pulls the trigger.

I say give him a chance.
Click to expand...
What if you are standing with your children? Do you allow the aggressor to kill you and your children?
 
SpaghettiCowboy said:
assuming that the use of lethal force is proportionate to the potential threat.
Click to expand...
True, but this is not the only necessary condition to justify the use of lethal force in cases of self defense. As the Catechism says, it falls under the principle of double-effect:
Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
Click to expand...
In order for the principle of double-effect to be justified, four conditions must be met:
  1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences; 2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good; 3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded from the act; 4.
Click to expand...
(Fr. John Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary, Double Effect)

If even on of those conditions is lacking, the act is unlawful.
 
Last edited:
Montrose said:
What if you are standing with your children? Do you allow the aggressor to kill you and your children?
Click to expand...
I think the consensus is that the lives of multiple likely victims outweigh the life of the aggressor.
 
kapp19 said:
The order of charity looms large here…
Click to expand...
Do you mean that moral decisions often involve working through competing moral values and principles depending on the situation at hand…? 😉

(To your comment, I agree.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top