The morality of the use of weapons in self-defense

[NSmith]

My question arises based on a new awareness that I’ve found about the principle of self-defense. As far as I know if someone is killed in self-defense the only way that it is not considered murderous is if the killing was accidental. I am not sure in what sense accidental is used, and if I’m wrong I’d welcome a correction.

CCC 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.”

My question is if I utilize a weapon, either a bludgeon, a knife, or a gun, in order of increasing lethality, at what point does any death that may occur as a result become “intended.” Basically, what weapons are morally licit to personally own and become proficient in the use of for the purposes of defense.

I assume that the circumstances don’t change the principle. So even if an aggressor has a gun and intends to kill you, you may not intentionally kill him.

 

[Ender]

“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.”

I think the confusion lies in the meaning of “intended”. If you commit an action that has multiple, predictable consequences there is a sense in which you intended them all given that you anticipated the outcomes and committed the act with full knowledge.

This is not the how the word is used in this context, rather what is referred to is the primary objective which is desired and which causes the action. The secondary consequences are foreseen but not intended in the sense of not desired.

If a person attacks you and you shoot him you recognize that you may well kill him, you may even be required to take an action that you know will kill him, but if the intention behind the act is self defense rather than killing, the action is moral.

 

[NSmith]

you may even be required to take an action that you know will kill him, but if the intention behind the act is self defense rather than killing, the action is moral.

Could you explain what the difference is in taking an action that is known to be lethal and intending to kill?

 

[Ender]

Could you explain what the difference is in taking an action that is known to be lethal and intending to kill?

If my desire is to save my family, and the only weapon I have with which to defend them is a bazooka, I may use it even though I know it will kill the assailant. If, however, I fire the weapon with the express intention of killing him then that is immoral. I may kill when intending to protect; I may not kill if my primary motivation is killing.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

How does this reconcile with martyrdom and turning the other cheek ?

 

[NSmith]

Here I think it is important to understand that the context and phrasing of the turn the other cheek passage implies serious personal insult, as when someone would strike another man with the back of his hand or the open palm in contempt. It is not understood to be the Lord’s advice to those who are assaulted with real physical harm. Jesus also advised his followers to sell their cloak and buy a sword, which some interpret to mean prepare oneself for opposition in a metaphorical way, but others interpret as a literal encouragement to protect themselves. Considering Peter had a sword and chopped an ear off the guards who came to arrest Christ, it seems the Apostles were prepared to fight if it came down to it, and they were in possession of weapons.
Martyrdom is an offering of the self to God when there is no other choice but to deny him. This is is not mutually exclusive with self-defense. Indeed, if after attempting to defend oneself against enemies of the faith, one is captured and they attempt to force the Christian to renounce his faith, the death of the that one granted final perseverance would still qualify as martyrdom even after the conflict, as far as I understand it.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

If a person attacks you and you shoot him you recognize that you may well kill him, you may even be required to take an action that you know will kill him, but if the intention behind the act is self defense rather than killing, the action is moral.

An aggressor with the intent to kill you or your loved ones is not innocent. Therefore it is not immoral to kill him.

"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him…" Exodus 22:2

 

[NSmith]

The sin of murder is not dependent on the crimes of the victim, but on the intent of the murderer. This is because your dignity and the inviolability of your life does not depend on your state of innocence but on God’s regard for you.
It would not be moral to kill even a heinous criminal if to kill him is your primary intent, as @Ender explained well.

 

[otjm]

Could you explain what the difference is in taking an action that is known to be lethal and intending to kill?

That is fairly simple.

An aggressor comes at you (for the sake of clarity, they have invaded your house and you have a weapon and they are coming at you in a rage - with or without a weapon in hand, but you clearly fear for your life).

You shoot to center of mass.

That is a lethal shot. But this is not a scene of cowboys and rustlers; it is in your house.

The attacker goes down.

Guess what - there is a good likelihood you have not killed him; he may die from the wound, but he is not dead.

You stop there. You have acted in self defense; you are not guilty of murder.

But you are so inflamed with rage that he broke into your house and attacked you, you go up to him bleeding on your floor, and you aim for his cranium and shoot him in the head.

That is murder. You were safe after the first shot, but you intentionally went up to someone no longer a threat and intentionally killed them.

Same scenario; the individual is attacking you and you shoot center of mass and they do not go down; you shoot again and they do not go down, you shoot a third and a fourth time and they do not go down… you may continue shooting until you have rendered them incapable of their attack. The first round may have been a killing round, but they are not dead until their body ceases to work.

I hunt mule deer, antelope, elk and Barbery sheep (aoudad). I have been hunting for the past 5 years in Montana and New Mexico and have harvested 1 bull elk (two lethal rounds, and he went about 80 to 100 yards before dying), 2 doe antelope (one died on the spot; the other travelled 10 to 15 yards, both one shot), 2 doe mule deer (both one shot; one moved 10 to 15 yards; the other about 25) and 4 buck mule deer (one, a yearling dropped, the others tumbled down or walked 10 to 25 yards and dropped - all one shot).

Fewer and fewer people hunt, and fewer and people know what it means to actually harvest the meat they eat (I eat all of it). The point I am trying to make is that using a weapon - whether it be in self defense against a human or harvesting animals - is not like in the movies.

There are numerous reports of men in battle being wounded multiple times, often with wounds that are either mortal or potentially mortal, and continuing to fight. Taking a round through the lungs is potentially mortal (the animals above were all lung shot) but if quickly treated may not kill.
(continued)

 

[otjm]

(continued)

So the difference is that you may protect yourself or others (and by law circumstances vary) by shooting an aggressor until they are no longer a threat. They may not be dead (yet) but if they are no longer a threat, you must stop shooting. As above, where the aggressor is no longer a threat, you may not go and shoot specifically to kill them.

That is why, in some few instances which hit the news, where an aggressor put the weapon holder in fear of their life, and the weapon holder shot multiple (as in more than two or three shots) times, the weapon holder may well be in a hard spot - unless most of the rounds went other than into the aggressor. In many police shootings multiple rounds may be fired with few actually hitting the suspect. And they are trained in shooting an aggressor - unlike many civilians. In a police standoff with an armed aggressor, the aggressor may be hit with multiple shots; but all are fired within 2 to 3 seconds or so; and if the aggressor is down, they must cease shooting unless the aggressor is still capable of firing back - which they may well be.

 

[otjm]

And you have watched too many Rambo movies… a LAW might be small enough to be wielded in a house. A bazooka isn’t. And neither is likely to be in the possession of a citizen.

 

[NSmith]

Thanks for the in depth response! My qualms were mostly answered by the distinction of primary and ancillary intention, but also the generalized sense of the law on the issue is helpful. Hopefully I never end up in a scenario where such usage of any weapon is required, but I’ve been thinking it might be prudent to be prepared for the worst given how 2020 has shaken out so far.

 

[Usagi]

You may use lethal force in self-defense: that is, you may take an action that could very easily result in the other person’s death, if they are the aggressor posing an imminent threat of death or permanent harm to you or someone else.

The “not intentional” part means that their death is not the goal, just the ending of the threat they pose. If they run away or surrender or are injured but survive, the goal has been accomplished and it would be murder to continue attacking to “finish them off.”

The unintended secondary effect in a double-effect situation doesn’t have to be unlikely. Indeed, it can be essentially certain barring a miracle — a classic example is that it is morally permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a woman with uterine cancer even if she is pregnant. The child will unfortunately die, but that is not the goal of the procedure — if the child somehow survived instead, that would be awesome, not a failure.

Likewise, the aggressor being killed is a possibility, perhaps a strong likelihood, that the defender accepts. But if the threat can be ended with everyone still alive, that’s a bonus, not a failure.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Here I think it is important to understand that the context and phrasing of the turn the other cheek passage implies serious personal insult, as when someone would strike another man with the back of his hand or the open palm in contempt. It is not understood to be the Lord’s advice to those who are assaulted with real physical harm. Jesus also advised his followers to sell their cloak and buy a sword, which some interpret to mean prepare oneself for opposition in a metaphorical way, but others interpret as a literal encouragement to protect themselves. Considering Peter had a sword and chopped an ear off the guards who came to arrest Christ, it seems the Apostles were prepared to fight if it came down to it, and they were in possession of weapons.
Martyrdom is an offering of the self to God when there is no other choice but to deny him. This is is not mutually exclusive with self-defense. Indeed, if after attempting to defend oneself against enemies of the faith, one is captured and they attempt to force the Christian to renounce his faith, the death of the that one granted final perseverance would still qualify as martyrdom even after the conflict, as far as I understand it.

But didn’t Jesus actually rebuke Peter for drawing his sword?

So we can’t exactly derive any model behavior from Peter in this instance.

Also, Jesus himself did not do anything in self defence during his arrest or passion. Not the littlest thing. Not once.

 

[Montrose]

My question is if I utilize a weapon, either a bludgeon, a knife, or a gun, in order of increasing lethality, at what point does any death that may occur as a result become “intended.” Basically, what weapons are morally licit to personally own and become proficient in the use of for the purposes of defense.

The weapon is irrelevant. You are allowed to own whatever the law allows you to own.

 

[Montrose]

But didn’t Jesus actually rebuke Peter for drawing his sword?

So we can’t exactly derive any model behavior from Peter in this instance.

Also, Jesus himself did not do anything in self defence during his arrest or passion. Not the littlest thing. Not once.

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

This is one of those questions that’s easy to theorize, but the fact is that if you are actually in a situation where your life or your family are threatened, you are going to take reasonable action to stop the offender. If they are killed in the confrontation, it’s probably because you used the only force available to you which turned out to be fatal, or they continued to fight their way in and attack and the only way to stop them was by killing them.

Ultimately, no sin is unforgivable. A normal person will still feel guilt and contrition for this, which would be forgiven in confession.

 

[o_mlly]

Not to muddle the thread but only to point out a distinction with a critical difference:

“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.”

The teaching is straight forward in its principle. Change one word “aggressor” to “innocent” and the morality of the act requires the application of other principles. Such as in:

… it is morally permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a woman with uterine cancer even if she is pregnant.

Since the child is not an aggressor, the principle of self-defense cannot justify the act. We must look to other principles, e.g., direct vs. indirect acts, proximate vs. remote effects, self-preservation, and proportion.

 

[Usagi]

Oh, absolutely. I wasn’t using the hysterectomy case as an example of self defense, but as an example of double effect in which the secondary evil effect is virtually certain but still considered to be unintended. That was in response to the OP’s concern that the use of a weapon that would make an assailant’s death more likely could possibly by itself render the death intended.

 

[DaveBj]

How does this reconcile with martyrdom and turning the other cheek ?

Turning the other cheek has to do with insults, not lethal attacks.

Martyrdom has to do with being attacked for one’s faith. The scenarios we’re talking about in this thread have to do with attackers who want to kill or maim, without regard to the religious faith of the victim.

D