Philosophy behind self-defense/guns etc.

[Isildur]

I'm still a student and we recently discussed the issue of guns, violence etc. in philosophy and we will continue this discussion at sometime in the future. This made me think of the philosophic backgrounds in favor of weapons and self-defense.
Politically it's all quite clear, if someone tries to kill me, I'm allowed to stop him, if necessary kill him. But what's the philosophical background for that?
In one "article" on www.a-human-right.com I read something about the "spirit of the enlightened warrior". Do you know of any literature or philosophical ideas/believes concerning the issue?

It seems like every intellectual person is condemning weapons etc. and here in Germany even the priests teach that the bible is pacifistic. But I guess, as all of this is very one-sided(if there would be no weapons we would all be happy, so weapons are bad), that there are intellectual frameworks for an armed society, for the right to self-defense, distinguishing between the violence of the aggressor and of the victim. The only problem is:I don't know it and have got no real idea where to look for it. That's why I ask here if anyone has information on that issue.
For example I just found this book accidentally while surfing through the net. I haven't read it but it sounds promising. But I welcome any material concerning the topic.

ps:If you have got any questions feel free to ask.

 

[roscoe]

You might want to check out all the unresolveable philosophical flaws in pacifism, too. Wikipedia is a good place to start.

 

[JesseL]

It's pretty easy to derive the right to self defense from the principle of self-ownership. See also the non-aggression principle.

Honestly, I think that most people opposed to armed self defense do not really believe that you are the sole and sovereign owner of your life and body. In their hearts they desire to see you enslaved to their own goals, doctrines, & desires.

 

[RPCVYemen]

unresolveable philosophical flaws in pacifism

I would think that you'd have a pretty hard time find a philosophical flaws in any reasobably mature pacificism (Quaker views, maybe Bertand Russell), etc. This is at least true if you mean "inconsistency" when you say "unresolveable philosophical flaw".

In general, I think that most of the varieties of pacifism adopt a different sets of axioms than non-pacifist philosophies. If you start with different axioms, you derive different results.

For example, here is one religious basis:

• Axiom: Human life is sacred.
• Everything that is sacred belongs to G-d.
• Only G-d may destroy that which belongs to G-d.
• Human beings are not G-d.
• Human beings may destroy any that is sacred.
• Therefore, human beings may not kill other human beings.

I think that the axioms are wrong - but there is no "unresolvable flaw" this in this argument.

... that there are intellectual frameworks for an armed society, for the right to self-defense, distinguishing between the violence of the aggressor and of the victim. The only problem is:I don't know it and have got no real idea where to look for it ...

I suspect that if you look for that Catholic Church's discussion of a "just war", you'd find some philosophical discussion about what it means to an agressor, and what it means to be a victim.

I suspect that you will find that it gets complicated fairly quickly.

Even the Founding Fathers finally had to punt - "endowed by their Creator", "inalienable rights", etc. - which may be true, but is not much of a philisophical argument.

Mike

 

[pax]

For some historical perspective on the religious side of things (keeping in mind that religion and philosophy go hand in hand, and that much of Western Civ has its roots in Judeo-Christian philosophy), you might look up what St. Augustine had to say about the idea of a Just War.

pax

 

[JohnL2]

If only there was a philosophical discipline that considered all of it. Human nature, psychology of "evil", virtue and vice, history of violence from groups upon other groups in all their contrivances.
Try out Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Especially the chapter on Courage. It lays a good foundation for reasoned argument. Also if you can, try Marcus Aurelius. Stoic philosophy is rife with the idea of mastery of self in relation to the external world.
Innovations come and are utilized and widespread. But human nature is pretty much a constant. Therein lies a level of predictability.
Intellectual arguments are great mental gymnastics, but ultimately what do you do when you face-down a psychopath or twisted dogma? Would they truly be open to reason?
Is it better to live a slave or die a free man? What kind of person are you and what do you value?

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

I've wondered about this myself and my answer is individualism. When i argue for gun-ownership, individualism is the ground i stand on.

 

[DogBonz]

Go east young man

I think that you will find a good source in the Eastern religions. They have a long standing tradition of viewing the balance between forces of nature, god and man, man and himself, etc.

Also, I would look at the writings of Voltaire, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and other Deists who believed that not only live was worth defending but also ideals and the basic rights of humans.

 

[TallPine]

here in Germany even the priests teach that the bible is pacifistic. But I guess, as all of this is very one-sided(if there would be no weapons we would all be happy, so weapons are bad),

Well, in Genesis the Bible tells about Cain murdering Abel with a blow to the head with a rock. So I guess that all we need to is ban rocks and we would all be happy

 

[Patrick_Henry]

In terms of Christian teaching on pacifism verses defense at least here in the US pacifism is a minority view in the church. To me the Bible seems to say that it 1. Okay to defend yourself and that 2.You are responsible to defend a. the helpless (others in need-maybe even future victims of a criminal you don't stop) and b. your family. And that you will be held guilty of sin if you don't defend them. As Pax already pointed out I'd check Augustine's just war stuff on this one although there are plenty of others. Just look up Just War and you'll find a lot. Also you could study moral equivalence those two topics would probably keep you busy with the philosophy of defense for a very long time...

 

[RPCVYemen]

Also if you can, try Marcus Aurelius. Stoic philosophy is rife with the idea of mastery of self in relation to the external world.

My (very very very) vague recollection is of the Stoics being pacifists. Am I wrong about that?

Mike

 

[obxned]

I am a pacifist!! But you never will have a peaceful world if you allow evil to flourish.

 

[El Tejon]

Springs from a variety of sources including, The Bible, Old and New Testament, Saxon Law, The Greeks, The Romans, the Italian republicans, The English Common Law.

 

[DogBonz]

LOL

For example, here is one religious basis:

Axiom: Human life is sacred.
Everything that is sacred belongs to G-d.
Only G-d may destroy that which belongs to G-d.
Human beings are not G-d.
Human beings may destroy any that is sacred.
Therefore, human beings may not kill other human beings.

If life IS sacred, and IF it belongs to God, then that means that if you let someone kill someone or let them kill you, and you do nothing to stop it, then you are condoning the destruction of God's property.

 

[crebralfix]

It is biologically based. Everyone wants to live. It's hardwired into our systems and requires extraordinary effort to override. You don't need a religious document or a teacher to tell you this. It's the way we're built.

 

[redbearde]

the philosophy of right to self-defense... Is there a similar philosophy of right to reproduce?

I always thought the right/responsibility to defend myself was more axiomatic than resulting from deduction.

 

[CWL]

Here's a great quote from the Dalai Lama about the reasonableness of self-defense (and inherent preparedness by having one's own weapon).

According to the Dalai Lama, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill
you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (Seattle
Times, May 15, 2001).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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."65

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​

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.
66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.

 

[Stickjockey]

Thomas Paine was a Quaker and a pacifist. Here's what he had to say on the matter:

"I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Thomas Paine was a Quaker and a pacifist. Here's what he had to say on the matter:

There was the Quaker who discovered a burglar in his house one night and told him, "Friend, I would do thee no harm. But thee standest where I am about to shoot."

 

[ChristopherG]

Dualism makes it pretty easy.

Zoroastrianism posits a good and an evil force at continuous battle on the playground of the cosmos. It is also the evident root of dualistic apocalypticism in 2nd temple (i.e., post-exhilic) Judaism and its apocalyptic child, Christianity. I expect a study of American Christians who find a message of empowered conflict against evil in both natural and supernatural guises would find that they subscribe to a strongly apocalyptic strain of Christianity.

That's probably not going to fly in German intellectual circles, though. I would second the reference to Aurelius, who was a thoughtful Stoic but also a campaigning emperor--so he, at least, wasn't a pacifist.

Myself, I'm an Epicurean, but that system doesn't give explicit consideration to the question that I know of. In general, I wouldn't expect philosophers to treat the question of SELF-defense as much as they would the question of how and when to use force in defense of what's RIGHT. I would build my justification of self-defense on the goodness of my freedom to live without threat from another, and the badness of that other's unwarranted attack on my freedom.

 

[romma]

My philosophy is simple,,, Keep Breathing.

 

[RPCVYemen]

f life IS sacred, and IF it belongs to God, then that means that if you let someone kill someone or let them kill you, and you do nothing to stop it, then you are condoning the destruction of God's property.

To argue that this is a contradiction, then you would have to demonstrate two things:

1) Pacifism implies "you do nothing to stop [killing]". Can you derive that from the argument presented? In fact, most pacifists I know would argue that you must resist all killing - but that you cannot kill to prevent a death.

2) That if you witness an action and do nothing to prevent that action, you are condoning that action.

Can you demonstrate either of these?

Mike

 

[Chui]

Esu Jmmanuel/"Jesus" was no pacifist. He admonished his disciples that did not have a sword to sell their robes and purchase one. A pacifist is amongst the lowest of human beings because he refuses to take any risk or responsibility for the defense of society.

Try The Art of Peace by Morehei Ushiba, founder of Aikido.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Thomas Paine was a Quaker and a pacifist.

If he picked up a weapon, intending to use it to kill another human being, then most pacifists would argue that he is no longer a pacifist. Most pacifists would consider "I'll only stop killing if everyone else does so first!" not to be a form of pacifism.

Paine's father was a Quaker, and his mother was Anglican. I don't know if Paine joined a Meeting for Worship or not. In those days, I am pretty sure that he would have been read out of Meeting for advocating any kind of violence. Quaker who accepted a call for a (violent) revolution against Britain called themselves "Free Quakers", and were rejected by there more traditional brethren. The same kind of thing happened during the Civil War.

However, not all Quakers are pacifists, though many are. I think all Friends who call themselves Conservative reject violence, but the more liberal Quakers do not always do so. Richard Nixon was a Quaker.


Mike