Morality of Self Defense

I posted this separately from the gun thread below because it does not quite fit. I think one thing Hawk's post brought up is the question of the morality of self defense. Once we answer this question, the question of gun rights becomes clearer IMO.


I think individuals have the right to defend themselves. I think it is moral for them to do so using all reasonable force. I would not go so far as to say somebody who does not defend themselves is immoral, however. I think this because all that is good, all progress that is made, all work that is done, comes from the minds of individuals. Everything a human does comes from his own mind when all is said and done. Since anything of value comes from individual effort, the individual is deserving of the utmost protection, morally and legally. This means that nobody can morally use force on another improperly- to hurt them. Hence, murder is wrong. Theft is wrong because the thief is appropriating somebody else's effort from them. Akin to a form of mini-slavery if you will.


Thus a person has inherent value and possesses his own life. His most cherished right is the right to this life, because all other rights follow that primary right. Nobody else can just go kill him or physically damage him. For this reason, the right to self defense is a very important right. It protects not just bodily integrity and physical existence, but the self-worth of an individual. For if we say a criminal has a higher right to your body than you do, it means the criminal is not worse than or equal to you, but in fact is better than you. I refuse to submit to another's improper physical force upon me; I demand the right to defend myself. And really nobody can take that right away from me, even if a government would punish me for its exercise. I understand England is doing this now in that it is curtailing the right to self-defense, even when a gun is not used. I think such a law is immoral.


Now the question is what tools should be allowed for such self-defense? I believe it is the hallmark of humanity itself to use the mind to create tools appropriate to succeed in our environment. The gun is such a tool at this stage in our development. It is very good for the job at hand, that of protecting individuals from the improper use of force by criminals, warlords, or oppressive governments. Its track record is excellent in this regard. The gun is small, efficient, effective in stopping humans who have tried to kill others. An old lady has the same right to her life as a young, strong individual who is skilled in unarmed fighting. The gun allows her to even the scales a bit and potentially defend herself from attack. Or maybe from going off to a reeducation or concentration camp. The use of the gun in such a case is moral. The gun itself has no moral value; only the act of its use has no such a value.


Because the gun is such an effective tool for self defense, and the right of self defense is so important, I believe people have the right to use the appropriate tool to defend themselves. Banning guns takes away the right to self defense because it denies people the appropriate tool. Even if you let people defend themselves with clubs or pepper foam or their hands, you have denied them a right. It is the same as giving people the right of freedom of speech, but denying them the use of writing. It does not make sense.


All this does not mean I think people must have a gun to be moral, although I have seen arguments that come close to such a position. Because I value individual choice so much, I recognize that some people may choose going without weapons, or even going without defending themselves. That is fine and is their choice. But defending myself with appropriate means is my choice. I certainly have the obligation to refrain from any improper use of force on another, as do we all.


The realities of the world are such that guns are sometimes necessary. I would be very happy if that were not so. Then the right of self defense could be exercised with lesser tools. A shot is not moral where a punch would suffice. In a perfect world, no self defense, physical or even verbal would be needed. We do not live in such a world.

Self defense is a moral in the purest sense.


One who does not defend himself is infinitely less likely to transmit his habits to his offspring.


This one way predates private property.


It is only after churches, rather than parents, become the vector for non-monastic memes - and population reaches some critical mass - that a given individual can be taught to turn the other cheek.


Also, Christianity was the first religion to really distinguish between cultural bloodline and actual bloodline, the best example being that the child of a rapist is no longer considered guilty of his father's crime.


So, the Collectivist Catholic tradition has been that the individual member of the flock won't me missed, while there is no need to kill the offending alien when he can instead be converted.


Kill them with love.


That's what happens when a religious organism puts its own propagation ahead of an individual bloodline.


eLROY

the state owns. do not resist. report to a reeducation center. comply. you do not exist. we love you.


brad

HDPM,


Interesting post.


I certainly wasn't saying people shouldn't defend themselves.


But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space.


A question for you... Let's say an unarmed man breaks into your house, do you think it is justifiable to shoot him?

'But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space. '


opinion not borne out by fact.


'A question for you... Let's say an unarmed man breaks into your house, do you think it is justifiable to shoot him? '


lets say that i (young strong male) break into your infirm grandmothers house. do you think she is justified in shooting me?


brad


p.s. by the way in some states (texas is one) you can use *deadly* force to protect your property. (not just your person).

Oh man! Why'd you have to ask that question? Why is he breaking in? Since he's unarmed, should we invite him to the kitchen for tea and cookies? No! Wait! Yes! It's way easier to clean blood from linoleum than out of carpet. I don't own a gun, but is it any more acceptable if I beat him to death with a baseball bat?

Hawk Said, "But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space." This is not necessarily the case. Others have posted about rising gun crime in England. But banning guns does not have the practical effect of stopping criminals from getting them. Moreover, the chances that home invaders will attack go up substantially in areas without guns. This is because a few thugs with knives and clubs are in no danger when they come in. Both Australia and England have had a huge increase in violent home invasions since banning guns. We don't have many home invasions where I am.


Hawk asks, "A question for you... Let's say an unarmed man breaks into your house, do you think it is justifiable to shoot him?" I think it is if it is manifest the person will offer violence to me or another person in the house. (Yes, even if he turns out to be unarmed, something you cannot assume when you encounter the criminal.) That is the law in my state essentially, and I think it is right. If I do not think he will physically attack me, then no, I don't think it is justified. Remember that coming into somebody's house is a violent act. Once they offer additional violence, you cannot be sure where they will stop. Your question doesn't have enough facts to really answer though. Each situation is different. I can tell you, however, that I would be at a tactical disadvantage in a violent encounter because I would be slow to react with violence. I think you have to be pretty sure of what is happening before the use of deadly force is justified. This puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to thugs. But that is the way things go. Also, I would not use deadly force to defend property alone, even if the law allowed it.(Depends on how you read some laws etc... but is illegal most places most of the time and not recommended anyway. That's my disclaimer.)


Question for Hawk- Aren't people being prosecuted and imprisoned for defending themselves against home invaders in England? What is the status of self-defense there, and do you think it is right?

you are sorely mistaken by using the argument that

'But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space.' if the theory were pure, then, sure ok, the argument holds water in a theoretial sense. but life and death doesn't happen on a theoretical sense. it happens every day in the streets and in peoples homes, and on the freeways, in shopping malls, in casinos, etc. and in our real world, criminals who use guns to commit crimes aren't interested in obeying gun laws. gun laws keep honest people honest, and only serve to unarm people interested in defending themselves. i should not have to break the law in order to defend myself properly. in this sense, i agree with HDPM.

There was a very high profile case a couple of years ago where a guy was imprisoned for manslaughter. He was terrorised for months by a gang of youths stealing from him and vandalising his property.


He started to lie in wait for them with a shotgun. Eventually when they attacked again... he shot one them dead... the kid was 16 I think. I don't recall how long he was imprisoned for... 7 years maybe. The reasoning behind such a long sentence is that the judge felt it was premeditated to a certain extent as he was armed and ready for the intruders although they accepted he didn't mean to kill the kid. (hence not murder)


I am against the use of guns period.


I am against the use of force to protect property.


Self defence? Yes, protect yourself and your family to a point where the threat is no longer a threat.

Assuming that the kids were going to do anything physical to the guy in his home he should get a medal, not 7 years. If they were spray painting outside, 7 years is light.


As to your statement about being against the use of guns no matter what, well, I respect that as long as you are consistent. That means no police officers can have them, no military use, etc... After all in a free country the police have only powers derived from the other citizens. But again, had this policy been in effect a few years back, you would have no country.