coelacanth
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 455
Philosophy behind self-defense/guns etc.
- Thread starter Isildur
- Start date
- Status
coelacanth
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 455
flying in German intellectual circles.....man, talk about restricted airspace. 
Chad
Member
If you can find a copy of "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen P. Halbrook, it is a chronological look at the evolution of the Second Amendment.
The first chapter deals with the philosophers, thinkers and writers from Aristotle up to the 18th century that influenced the thinking of those who wrote or influenced our Constitution.
The first chapter deals with the philosophers, thinkers and writers from Aristotle up to the 18th century that influenced the thinking of those who wrote or influenced our Constitution.
What I mean is that, in true pacifism, one cannot do violence even to assist another person. So, to give an example (from Utilitarianism), you could not break a terrorists arm to stop him from throwing a grenade into a schoolbus. A pacifist would argue that he had no moral obligation to stop the terrorist because there is no crime of omission.
Part of the problem is holding the morality of yourself above the actual real-world circumstances of those around you. In other words, your personal morality is more important than what happens to the schoolkids.
Furthermore, if you are merely obligated to do no harm, rather than obligated to act to help others, then you can permit any manner of horrible things to occur.
Pacifism is best viewed as a tactic that is effective in some circumstances (India circa 1949, USA circa 1960), but not others (Soviet Union 1930, China 1950).
ConfuseUs
Member
I would say look at the philosophies (that were written down) of warrior societies to start out with. They are really more a set of values that are used to construct codes of honor than intellectual frameworks though. The ancient Chinese military theorists are also a good place to start; they are very anti-war and anti-violence but paradoxically the most sophisticated military thinkers in history.
I think that German intellectual circles are trying to pretend that the only philosophy is pacifist philosophy, which is wrong. Philosophies can run in a continuum from absolutely no violence to violence is the reason for being, depending on the social values behind the philosophy.
I think that German intellectual circles are trying to pretend that the only philosophy is pacifist philosophy, which is wrong. Philosophies can run in a continuum from absolutely no violence to violence is the reason for being, depending on the social values behind the philosophy.
ServiceSoon
Member
Even the dalai lama of Tibet has an army.
Wow thank you for your numerous replies! You've already helped me a lot!
@pax: The HP in your sig seems to provide some pretty good arguments as well.
@DogBonz: Do you know any specific persons, groups, believes etc. of these Eastern religions? It would be a lot easier to find relevant information/sources then, I guess.
@CWL: Cool. I wouldn't have thought that the Dalai Lama says something like that.
@pax: The HP in your sig seems to provide some pretty good arguments as well.
@DogBonz: Do you know any specific persons, groups, believes etc. of these Eastern religions? It would be a lot easier to find relevant information/sources then, I guess.
@CWL: Cool. I wouldn't have thought that the Dalai Lama says something like that.
Sylvan-Forge
Member
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
roscoe said:
The alternative, of course, is to let your actions be determined by the actions of the most evil person i around you. Do you want to surrender that?
I suspect that there are lengths that all of us would not go to in order to saver other children. Here's a contrived situation: If shooting you own child would save a bus school of schoolkids, would you do it? I would not. Isn't that saying my personal morality is more important than what happens to the schoolkids?
roscoe said:
I think that pacifists would argue that it's always effective - but they would have a different understanding of what it means to be effective.
Johnny B
Member
Thomas Aquinas wrote that killing in self defense is not right, but is morally permissible as long as one does not take another's life for any reason other than that it appears to be the only effective means of preserving one's own life. I assume, since Aquinas was in the Aristotelian tradition, that self-preservation was ultimately in the interest of the "common good", and anything with that teleological significance is worth sustaining. However, once you start using self-defense as a justification to knock off folks you don't like, you're getting yourself in trouble. And again, as others have written, there is the just war theory of Aquinas and Augustine, but that is not necessarily applicable to individuals. As a matter of fact, Aquinas wrote that only a state could go to war, and only then against another state. Don't know if that helps, but there it is.
Johnny B said:
That sounds correct. I would expect that a philosophical discussion of self-defense would either hinge on the notion of the "common good", or on the construct of the notion of a "right." I haven't read much philosophy, and I have never come across the discussion of a "right" in philosophy.
Nietzsche would have something astonishingly eloquent to say - but I think that he would argue that only the ethics of slaves (by which he would mean Christianity, socialism, etc.) restrict the powerful from killing whoever and whenever they desire. He would probably also argue that the powerful would demonstrate their power most eloquently through transformation of self ("becoming").
Mike
Johnny B
Member
With Nietzsche, the powerful, or "aristocratic class" would simply be acting according to their nature if they dominate the slaves. This, to Nieztsche, is preferable to the "slave revolt" in morals that manufactures the distinction between good & bad and good & evil.
Okay, so I'll confess: I study philosophy in school and I am a total nerd for political theory. There's all kinds of natural right philosophy, and one need look no further than Locke's assertion of the right of all men to life, liberty and property and our nation's fathers for this doctrine. It can be easily extrapolated that the right of life includes the right to whatever means needed to protect our lives. Self-defense crops up all over in political thought. Fear of violent death is at the core of Hobbes' political thought, and according to him, it is the prime motivator, along with the uniquely human faculty of reason, in establishing the social contract under which all are protected from such threats to their well being. In fact, the first law of nature in Hobbes' theory is that our right to self-defense CAN NEVER be forfeited. Any sovereign power that demands such a thing does not command the obedience of its people, and any individual that attempts to take the life of another can be killed in turn. Anyway, total nerd stuff, but I hope this helps.
Okay, so I'll confess: I study philosophy in school and I am a total nerd for political theory. There's all kinds of natural right philosophy, and one need look no further than Locke's assertion of the right of all men to life, liberty and property and our nation's fathers for this doctrine. It can be easily extrapolated that the right of life includes the right to whatever means needed to protect our lives. Self-defense crops up all over in political thought. Fear of violent death is at the core of Hobbes' political thought, and according to him, it is the prime motivator, along with the uniquely human faculty of reason, in establishing the social contract under which all are protected from such threats to their well being. In fact, the first law of nature in Hobbes' theory is that our right to self-defense CAN NEVER be forfeited. Any sovereign power that demands such a thing does not command the obedience of its people, and any individual that attempts to take the life of another can be killed in turn. Anyway, total nerd stuff, but I hope this helps.
Not really, because a pacifist would say that the rule applies in ALL circumstances. In the circumstance you describe, I might act one way, while KNOWING that it was ultimately wrong (on the other hand I might not, but I would certainly know what was ultimately the right thing to do). Pacifism is wrong because it tries to apply a simplistic formula to all circustances. Something that applies even one more layer of calculations of right and wrong, like Utilitarianism, is much better (although I am not a Utilitarian).
Well, if they want to redefine words, then there is hardly any point in using them. I can't imagine that most people would recognize a pacifist protest as a sucess if the result was everyone being killed, and no other gain in what they sought. Unless you want to make metaphysical claims about places like heaven. In that case, you have essentially surrendured to spitituality, and there is no reason to make philosophical claims that others can examine.
Dave Kopel Law Review Article
There is a highly-detailed history of the right of self-defense in a new law review article by Dave Kopel.
The article can be viewed at:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf
There is a highly-detailed history of the right of self-defense in a new law review article by Dave Kopel.
The article can be viewed at:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf
roscoe said:
Couldn't a pacifist do the same thing - knowing they were wrong - and still claim to be as consistent as you are?
It seems to me that coming up with a philosophical defense that you jettison in difficult situations is not very difficult or interesting.
roscoe said:
There's no redefinition you defining "success". For most of the pacifists that I know (who are mostly Quaker) the goal is to respond to violence with love. Dying as a witness to virtue may be success. Consider the last words of Mary Dyer (a Quaker hung in Boston - who returned to Boston to die to force the repeal of laws she considered unjust):
Maybe by your definition, her protest was not a success. Many historians would agree (I think) that her protest helped bring religious tolerance to the United States.
Well, you have made my point. It was judged a success because it furthered her goals. If she had died anonymously, it would not be a succes except possibly by her own standards.
The other point is that, if non-violence is the goal, then it relieves you of the need to make difficult moral decisions like in the scenario you outlined. In my case it was a difficult call. To a pacifist, there is no quandry - you always choose the path of not acting violently. And that puts the pacifists morality above the real-world lives of the people affected. So what they are, in essence, saying is that clinging to their morality (responding to violence with love) is more important than saving the lives of others. To me, that is unsatisfying.
BADUNAME13
Member
Well now, I'm just a simple Marine who doesn't know how to work many things much more complicated than a 249.
My Philosophy is simply that it is better for my enemy to die than me or my buddies. And I will insure this by any means possible.
As for the bible being against violence... Luke I think chapter 22 about verse 35 where Jesus tells his followers that now that he is going to depart if they do not own a sword (The premere OFFENSIVE weapon of the day) to sell their cloak and buy one. When they said "look lord, here are 2 swords." he said "That is enough."
My Philosophy is simply that it is better for my enemy to die than me or my buddies. And I will insure this by any means possible.
As for the bible being against violence... Luke I think chapter 22 about verse 35 where Jesus tells his followers that now that he is going to depart if they do not own a sword (The premere OFFENSIVE weapon of the day) to sell their cloak and buy one. When they said "look lord, here are 2 swords." he said "That is enough."
BADUNAME13
Member
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/pass_the_ammo.htm
PRAISE THE LORD AND (PLEASE DO) PASS THE AMMUNITION
By Duncan Long
http://duncanlong.com/ammo.html
Unfortunately much of the task of disarming the free world is being carried out by many churches and so-called Christian groups. Many of these people claim that their ideas are based on the Bible. However a close look at their most often quoted source, the Bible, can actually turn pacifist arguments against self-defense on their heads. A close look at the Bible will also reveal the moral inadequacy of these groups just as thoroughly as their logical inadequacy was detailed in the previous article. A close look at the Bible actually gives the moral justification in self-defense which many are looking for.
Before launching into even a brief study of the Bible, it's wise to remember that an overview gives a fuller and better idea of what's going on than does a detailed look at a few fragments of the whole. The old joke of the guy who decides to pick out two key verses in the Bible to live by and ends up with "And Judas went and hanged himself" and "Go thou and do likewise" may be funny; unfortunately, those who do this same type of thing by picking and choosing verses to support moral arguments can cause a lot of needless suffering among those foolish enough to pay any mind to them. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to self-defense.
(By this same token, many liberal theologians like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible were "really inspired" or are factual. Those who argue that some areas of the Bible--which don't support their particular dogma--"don't count" should bare in mind that, by the same logic, those which support their ideas don't necessarily "count" either. If the idea that only part of the Bible "counts" morally is followed, the next logic step is that the whole Bible would then be thrown out and every man will decide morality by his own standards or a when-in-Rome-do-as-the-Romans type of wishy washy value system. And if that's done, the self-defense advocates have won since the majority in the US feel self-defense is justified and the laws support the act as well.)
As to what is actually in the Bible, an overview shows that, far from being an outline of pacifism, the book does support both an individual's--as well as a country's--right to not only defend themselves but to take aggressive action toward enemies. A quick look at Jewish history, as outlined in the early "books" of the Bible, reveals that the Israelis not only went into battle and conquered their enemies, they did so at the COMMAND of God and went with his BLESSINGS.
The Mosaic law (that given to the Jews by Moses and believed by most religious Jews and Christians to have come directly from God) also covers the methods of waging war (in Deuteronomy chapter 20). This chapter makes no mention of NOT killing enemies; rather, it commands the Jews to not destroy the land so that it can't support them after they win the wars they wage.
On the personal level, much the same idea applies. The Bible is NOT inconsistent when it comes to self-defense.
Probably the most misinterpreted passage of the Bible when it comes to persons defending themselves (or countries waging war or capital punishment) is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." One of the Ten Commandments, this is to be found in Exodus 20: 13.
Unfortunately, what many so-called religious authorities fail to tell when arguing against self-defense by quoting this bit of scripture is that there are several words in the Hebrew language which express the verb "kill." The Hebrew word used in this commandment ALWAYS means "murder" and ONLY in what would now be called a "pre-meditated" murder at that.
Unfortunately, the word "kill" has changed since the time of King James when the first major translation of the Bible into English was carried out. The "kill" would more properly be translated as "murder" as far as modern English usage is concerned and, in fact, many modern translations of the Bible generally use "murder" in this passage. Check it out in a modern language translation of the Bible or--better yet--with someone who knows Hebrew.
This Bible passage deals with murder, not self-defense and it's a grave mistake to interpret is as prohibiting self-defense. Thus the commandment is simply "Thou shalt not MURDER." (And any religious leader using this as an argument against self-defense should be dismissed as a liar or sent back for more theological training.)
Throughout the first few books of the Bible, a basic theme emerges: the Jewish society was to treat crime as a disease to be eliminated. When necessary, criminals were banished from the society or, if they refused to stop their crimes, often even put to death. The idea was to keep the society as pure as humanly possible by purging it of crime.
Where does self-defense fit into the Bibical scheme of things?
In fact, the Bible makes the assumption that men and women will defend themselves against someone intent on harming them. (It's interesting that only in our "enlightened" times do intellectuals start questioning the idea that people have a perfect and natural right to defend themselves.)
However, there's one passage of Mosaic law which does cover accidental killings as well as outlining what constitutes a murder. While it doesn't outline what constitutes self-defense in itself, it does show what it is NOT. The passage is to be found in Deuteronomy, Chapter 19. Here we find that a person who accidentally kills someone has the right to flee to a sanctuary city so that those out to avenge the death of a loved one can't murder the accidental killer before their emotions cool and reason returns.
This Chapter goes on to outline what will be done to a murderer. Anyone who is guilty of premeditated murder and flees to one of these cities was in big trouble. The elders of the city "hold court" and if he was found guilty, he was delivered to the "avenger" (a relative of the person murdered) and put to death with no appeals or pleas of "cruel and unusual punishment."
It is interesting to note the limited specification of just what constitutes murder in this passage. In the 11th verse of this chapter, we find what constitutes murder: "But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die..."
Two requirements had to be met BEFORE a man was guilty of murder. First, the murderer had to "hate" his victim. Though this would be hard to prove since it is impossible for a human judge to look into a criminal's mind, it was probably not a point of defense for those charged with murder since their actions would prove hateful intent; undoubtedly this "hate" included hating a victim because he was rich, had something the criminal wanted, was from a certain family or the like.
Second, the murderer had to be waiting somewhere to commit his act; in effect the crime had to be premeditated. (It should be noted that Mosaic law required that at least two witnesses be available to testify against a law breaker and that their testimony agree; consequently, the intent to commit the crime would have to be gleaned from the testimony of the witnesses or the crime would be "thrown out of court" as it were.)
Obviously, someone who is uses lethal force to defend himself against a stranger (who has broken into a home suddenly assaults a citizen on a dark street) doesn't fit into the category of being a murderer. In such a case, a citizen would not be killing out of hate (how could he hate someone he didn't know anything about) and he would not have been lying in wait to commit his act against the criminal who had singled the citizen out. The bottom line is that a person defending himself against criminal attack does so without breaking any Bibical laws or commandments.
Of course there is the "religious" argument that people shouldn't have weapons. What does the Bible say about weapons? Are they evil (as some religious leaders would have us believe)?
There are NO admonitions not to carry weapons in the Bible. In the Old Testament, men carry swords, bows and arrows, spears or whatever freely and without restrictions as long as the nation remained under its own sovereignty. Only when Israel was taken over by enemy nations were the people forced to give up weapons.
All right. But how about Jesus? Wasn't he a meek leader who refused to take any forceful actions on his own?
In fact, this isn't the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament.
The Bibical Jesus is far from meek. He apparently drove those breaking Jewish laws from the temple in Jerusalem once (and possibly twice) and wasn't above risking life and limb to point out very publicly and vocally where things needed to be changed among corrupt religious and government leaders.
During this period of Jewish history, a Roman "ban" on weapons was in place and the average Jew was disarmed with weapons legally allowed in the hands of special Jewish "police" groups charged with enforcing the law (both Roman and Jewish religious law) as well as in the hands of the occupying army.
Even in this situation, the Jews often carried short swords or daggers concealed on their persons. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples on one occasion, "... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (This is in Luke 22: 36--a passage not often used for sermons in churches advocating pacifism!).
This same Bible passage also tells that the disciples told Jesus that they had two swords with them already (apparently concealed on their persons!). Jesus, who is facing the his own death in a short time, does NOT admonish them that this having weapons is a sin! Rather, he says that two swords are enough.
Later, Peter even went so far as to use one of the swords to attempt to lop of the head of one of the men who had come out with swords and clubs to arrest Jesus; Peter missed taking off a head but did get an ear. Jesus averted a slaughter of his outnumbered disciples by healing the injured man and giving himself over to the group that had come to capture him. His disciples fled into the night, with one even shedding his clothes in the process (Mark 14: 50-52).
Certainly these passages suggest that both Jesus and his disciples were not the timid, passive characters many church leaders would have us believe. Rather they were active men capable to taking action to defend themselves against enemies.
It would, of course, be wrong to think that the New Testament advocates a violent life style. Verses like "Blessed are the peace makers" (this was before any revolver had that title, remember) and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," among others would counter any arguments with such a thrust. But the New Testament hardly advocates total pacifism in the face of danger, either.
Another argument often made is that "we should be like Christ" and--according to liberal thinking--be pacifists. Disregarding the nearly (to many) blasphemous idea that a person can be perfect like Christ, those making this argument are guilty of a vary limited view of what the New Testament has to say about Jesus.
While Jesus allowed himself to be killed by his enemies, the whole Bibical account also has him raised up from the dead and finally judging his enemies as well. The conquering Christ that breaks his enemies apart with a rod of iron and has a sword in his mouth (capable of waging war on enemies) is ignored by these people. If anything, the admonition to be "like Christ" would make us more like Rambo than Gandi.
The New Testament teaches that "Christians" should obey the laws of the land they are in, provided the laws aren't immoral according to Bibical principles (Hebrews 13: 17). This has some important ramifications for those interested in self-defense.
While laws may vary slightly from one place to another, generally laws in the US and most Western countries allow a person to defend himself or any member of his family from what he perceives as being an immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death. For those living in such countries, self-defense is legal and, as we've seen, it isn't non-Bibical. Therefore, self-defense is a moral and "Christian" thing to do if we're to take the bibical admonition to obey the laws of the land.
Some thought should be given as to just WHY Judo-Christian laws, as well as those of most other civilized societies, have been so harsh on criminals and have allowed good men to defend themselves against criminal attack. The short answer is that this is the only way to protect the society and--in the long run--protect those unable to protect themselves.
How can this be?
It must be remembered that most criminals are REPEAT offenders. Anyone who would assault or kill a person if he doesn't defend himself will probably commit other serious crimes in the near future. That means that, should you choose to "live and let live", letting a criminal rob and kill you simply allows him to go on to another innocent victim later on. In effect, your lack of action may well cause other innocent people to be hurt or killed.
With this in mind, certainly anyone interested in being "his brother's keeper" should realize that stopping a criminal with force would very possible save a number of other people untold misery and possibly even their lives.
Likewise what kind of "bother's keeper" sits by passively while a criminal robs, beats, or kills and innocent victim? Again, the moral imperative is to take action. The passive bystander is definitely guilty of being immoral when he refuses to defend others or himself.
Everyone must "know himself" and what he believes and feels before deciding to defend himself or others. Failure to give thought to his inner self may cause him to hesitate at a critical moment when he should take decisive action. Such hesitation can spell death in a self-defense situation. But a person should never hesitate because of what misguided religious leaders who wish to rewrite both the Bible and Western law have preached. The Bible doesn't preach becoming a whimp. Rather, it teaches being a good citizen who is capable of defending himself. In the US, those prepared to fight back against a criminal when he has left them no other choice are legally AND morally justified in doing so.
When faced by a criminal who has murder in his eye, a good citizen should just mutter, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
PRAISE THE LORD AND (PLEASE DO) PASS THE AMMUNITION
By Duncan Long
http://duncanlong.com/ammo.html
Unfortunately much of the task of disarming the free world is being carried out by many churches and so-called Christian groups. Many of these people claim that their ideas are based on the Bible. However a close look at their most often quoted source, the Bible, can actually turn pacifist arguments against self-defense on their heads. A close look at the Bible will also reveal the moral inadequacy of these groups just as thoroughly as their logical inadequacy was detailed in the previous article. A close look at the Bible actually gives the moral justification in self-defense which many are looking for.
Before launching into even a brief study of the Bible, it's wise to remember that an overview gives a fuller and better idea of what's going on than does a detailed look at a few fragments of the whole. The old joke of the guy who decides to pick out two key verses in the Bible to live by and ends up with "And Judas went and hanged himself" and "Go thou and do likewise" may be funny; unfortunately, those who do this same type of thing by picking and choosing verses to support moral arguments can cause a lot of needless suffering among those foolish enough to pay any mind to them. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to self-defense.
(By this same token, many liberal theologians like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible were "really inspired" or are factual. Those who argue that some areas of the Bible--which don't support their particular dogma--"don't count" should bare in mind that, by the same logic, those which support their ideas don't necessarily "count" either. If the idea that only part of the Bible "counts" morally is followed, the next logic step is that the whole Bible would then be thrown out and every man will decide morality by his own standards or a when-in-Rome-do-as-the-Romans type of wishy washy value system. And if that's done, the self-defense advocates have won since the majority in the US feel self-defense is justified and the laws support the act as well.)
As to what is actually in the Bible, an overview shows that, far from being an outline of pacifism, the book does support both an individual's--as well as a country's--right to not only defend themselves but to take aggressive action toward enemies. A quick look at Jewish history, as outlined in the early "books" of the Bible, reveals that the Israelis not only went into battle and conquered their enemies, they did so at the COMMAND of God and went with his BLESSINGS.
The Mosaic law (that given to the Jews by Moses and believed by most religious Jews and Christians to have come directly from God) also covers the methods of waging war (in Deuteronomy chapter 20). This chapter makes no mention of NOT killing enemies; rather, it commands the Jews to not destroy the land so that it can't support them after they win the wars they wage.
On the personal level, much the same idea applies. The Bible is NOT inconsistent when it comes to self-defense.
Probably the most misinterpreted passage of the Bible when it comes to persons defending themselves (or countries waging war or capital punishment) is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." One of the Ten Commandments, this is to be found in Exodus 20: 13.
Unfortunately, what many so-called religious authorities fail to tell when arguing against self-defense by quoting this bit of scripture is that there are several words in the Hebrew language which express the verb "kill." The Hebrew word used in this commandment ALWAYS means "murder" and ONLY in what would now be called a "pre-meditated" murder at that.
Unfortunately, the word "kill" has changed since the time of King James when the first major translation of the Bible into English was carried out. The "kill" would more properly be translated as "murder" as far as modern English usage is concerned and, in fact, many modern translations of the Bible generally use "murder" in this passage. Check it out in a modern language translation of the Bible or--better yet--with someone who knows Hebrew.
This Bible passage deals with murder, not self-defense and it's a grave mistake to interpret is as prohibiting self-defense. Thus the commandment is simply "Thou shalt not MURDER." (And any religious leader using this as an argument against self-defense should be dismissed as a liar or sent back for more theological training.)
Throughout the first few books of the Bible, a basic theme emerges: the Jewish society was to treat crime as a disease to be eliminated. When necessary, criminals were banished from the society or, if they refused to stop their crimes, often even put to death. The idea was to keep the society as pure as humanly possible by purging it of crime.
Where does self-defense fit into the Bibical scheme of things?
In fact, the Bible makes the assumption that men and women will defend themselves against someone intent on harming them. (It's interesting that only in our "enlightened" times do intellectuals start questioning the idea that people have a perfect and natural right to defend themselves.)
However, there's one passage of Mosaic law which does cover accidental killings as well as outlining what constitutes a murder. While it doesn't outline what constitutes self-defense in itself, it does show what it is NOT. The passage is to be found in Deuteronomy, Chapter 19. Here we find that a person who accidentally kills someone has the right to flee to a sanctuary city so that those out to avenge the death of a loved one can't murder the accidental killer before their emotions cool and reason returns.
This Chapter goes on to outline what will be done to a murderer. Anyone who is guilty of premeditated murder and flees to one of these cities was in big trouble. The elders of the city "hold court" and if he was found guilty, he was delivered to the "avenger" (a relative of the person murdered) and put to death with no appeals or pleas of "cruel and unusual punishment."
It is interesting to note the limited specification of just what constitutes murder in this passage. In the 11th verse of this chapter, we find what constitutes murder: "But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die..."
Two requirements had to be met BEFORE a man was guilty of murder. First, the murderer had to "hate" his victim. Though this would be hard to prove since it is impossible for a human judge to look into a criminal's mind, it was probably not a point of defense for those charged with murder since their actions would prove hateful intent; undoubtedly this "hate" included hating a victim because he was rich, had something the criminal wanted, was from a certain family or the like.
Second, the murderer had to be waiting somewhere to commit his act; in effect the crime had to be premeditated. (It should be noted that Mosaic law required that at least two witnesses be available to testify against a law breaker and that their testimony agree; consequently, the intent to commit the crime would have to be gleaned from the testimony of the witnesses or the crime would be "thrown out of court" as it were.)
Obviously, someone who is uses lethal force to defend himself against a stranger (who has broken into a home suddenly assaults a citizen on a dark street) doesn't fit into the category of being a murderer. In such a case, a citizen would not be killing out of hate (how could he hate someone he didn't know anything about) and he would not have been lying in wait to commit his act against the criminal who had singled the citizen out. The bottom line is that a person defending himself against criminal attack does so without breaking any Bibical laws or commandments.
Of course there is the "religious" argument that people shouldn't have weapons. What does the Bible say about weapons? Are they evil (as some religious leaders would have us believe)?
There are NO admonitions not to carry weapons in the Bible. In the Old Testament, men carry swords, bows and arrows, spears or whatever freely and without restrictions as long as the nation remained under its own sovereignty. Only when Israel was taken over by enemy nations were the people forced to give up weapons.
All right. But how about Jesus? Wasn't he a meek leader who refused to take any forceful actions on his own?
In fact, this isn't the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament.
The Bibical Jesus is far from meek. He apparently drove those breaking Jewish laws from the temple in Jerusalem once (and possibly twice) and wasn't above risking life and limb to point out very publicly and vocally where things needed to be changed among corrupt religious and government leaders.
During this period of Jewish history, a Roman "ban" on weapons was in place and the average Jew was disarmed with weapons legally allowed in the hands of special Jewish "police" groups charged with enforcing the law (both Roman and Jewish religious law) as well as in the hands of the occupying army.
Even in this situation, the Jews often carried short swords or daggers concealed on their persons. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples on one occasion, "... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (This is in Luke 22: 36--a passage not often used for sermons in churches advocating pacifism!).
This same Bible passage also tells that the disciples told Jesus that they had two swords with them already (apparently concealed on their persons!). Jesus, who is facing the his own death in a short time, does NOT admonish them that this having weapons is a sin! Rather, he says that two swords are enough.
Later, Peter even went so far as to use one of the swords to attempt to lop of the head of one of the men who had come out with swords and clubs to arrest Jesus; Peter missed taking off a head but did get an ear. Jesus averted a slaughter of his outnumbered disciples by healing the injured man and giving himself over to the group that had come to capture him. His disciples fled into the night, with one even shedding his clothes in the process (Mark 14: 50-52).
Certainly these passages suggest that both Jesus and his disciples were not the timid, passive characters many church leaders would have us believe. Rather they were active men capable to taking action to defend themselves against enemies.
It would, of course, be wrong to think that the New Testament advocates a violent life style. Verses like "Blessed are the peace makers" (this was before any revolver had that title, remember) and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," among others would counter any arguments with such a thrust. But the New Testament hardly advocates total pacifism in the face of danger, either.
Another argument often made is that "we should be like Christ" and--according to liberal thinking--be pacifists. Disregarding the nearly (to many) blasphemous idea that a person can be perfect like Christ, those making this argument are guilty of a vary limited view of what the New Testament has to say about Jesus.
While Jesus allowed himself to be killed by his enemies, the whole Bibical account also has him raised up from the dead and finally judging his enemies as well. The conquering Christ that breaks his enemies apart with a rod of iron and has a sword in his mouth (capable of waging war on enemies) is ignored by these people. If anything, the admonition to be "like Christ" would make us more like Rambo than Gandi.
The New Testament teaches that "Christians" should obey the laws of the land they are in, provided the laws aren't immoral according to Bibical principles (Hebrews 13: 17). This has some important ramifications for those interested in self-defense.
While laws may vary slightly from one place to another, generally laws in the US and most Western countries allow a person to defend himself or any member of his family from what he perceives as being an immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death. For those living in such countries, self-defense is legal and, as we've seen, it isn't non-Bibical. Therefore, self-defense is a moral and "Christian" thing to do if we're to take the bibical admonition to obey the laws of the land.
Some thought should be given as to just WHY Judo-Christian laws, as well as those of most other civilized societies, have been so harsh on criminals and have allowed good men to defend themselves against criminal attack. The short answer is that this is the only way to protect the society and--in the long run--protect those unable to protect themselves.
How can this be?
It must be remembered that most criminals are REPEAT offenders. Anyone who would assault or kill a person if he doesn't defend himself will probably commit other serious crimes in the near future. That means that, should you choose to "live and let live", letting a criminal rob and kill you simply allows him to go on to another innocent victim later on. In effect, your lack of action may well cause other innocent people to be hurt or killed.
With this in mind, certainly anyone interested in being "his brother's keeper" should realize that stopping a criminal with force would very possible save a number of other people untold misery and possibly even their lives.
Likewise what kind of "bother's keeper" sits by passively while a criminal robs, beats, or kills and innocent victim? Again, the moral imperative is to take action. The passive bystander is definitely guilty of being immoral when he refuses to defend others or himself.
Everyone must "know himself" and what he believes and feels before deciding to defend himself or others. Failure to give thought to his inner self may cause him to hesitate at a critical moment when he should take decisive action. Such hesitation can spell death in a self-defense situation. But a person should never hesitate because of what misguided religious leaders who wish to rewrite both the Bible and Western law have preached. The Bible doesn't preach becoming a whimp. Rather, it teaches being a good citizen who is capable of defending himself. In the US, those prepared to fight back against a criminal when he has left them no other choice are legally AND morally justified in doing so.
When faced by a criminal who has murder in his eye, a good citizen should just mutter, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
Zen21Tao
Member
Under the western mindset self-defense falls into the realm of ethics. The three major systems in ethics are Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics. In each case, one can argue that self-defense is a morally right act.
Utilitarianism:
The consequence with the greatest utility is the most morally correct choice. The greatest utility is of course the preservation of the human species. As such, self-preservation is a necessity for any species to survive therefore it offers for more utility on the grand scale for each subject to defend his own life against the threat of death.
Deontology:
Most would agree that the preservation of human life is an a priori morally right act. But what about if one has to take a life in order to save one’s own life or the life of someone else? In this condition deontologists use the Reciprocity Principle. Under the Reciprocity Principle, when a murderer kills, or tries to kill, he tacitly, by the implication of his act, claims the right to kill. Since he is, in fact, no different from his human victim, he thereby grants to others the right to kill him, at least in self-defense, if not punitively. He cannot consistently argue that he has the right to kill others, but others do not have the right to kill him. In other words, an attacker’s actions against you remove the moral wrongness of killing as it applies to him.
Virtue Ethics:
The moral rightness or wrongness is based on what a “virtuous” man would do. Throughout history there have been a great number of virtuous men (and women) that have acknowledged that self-defense is ones right.
Double Effect Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas:
Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one's assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him. Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” As Aquinas's discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
Just War Doctrine:
In reference to the “Just War Doctrine” Pope Pius XII says “[o]wing to the increasing destructiveness of weaponry … war can not be waged morally except as an act of self-defense.” So, then the flip side must be true. If war or battle is waged for the purpose of self-defense then it is done so morally.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=just war doctrine
As for Eastern Philosophy, all on has to do is look at how intertwined Eastern thought is with Martial Arts. In the Tao Te Ching the need for the use of weapons for defense is acknowledged. What separates the wise for others is the frame of mind one has regarding having to use such weapons. The wise choose to use weapons for defense when absolutely necessary but view having to use the weapons as a sad and solemn occasion.
Utilitarianism:
The consequence with the greatest utility is the most morally correct choice. The greatest utility is of course the preservation of the human species. As such, self-preservation is a necessity for any species to survive therefore it offers for more utility on the grand scale for each subject to defend his own life against the threat of death.
Deontology:
Most would agree that the preservation of human life is an a priori morally right act. But what about if one has to take a life in order to save one’s own life or the life of someone else? In this condition deontologists use the Reciprocity Principle. Under the Reciprocity Principle, when a murderer kills, or tries to kill, he tacitly, by the implication of his act, claims the right to kill. Since he is, in fact, no different from his human victim, he thereby grants to others the right to kill him, at least in self-defense, if not punitively. He cannot consistently argue that he has the right to kill others, but others do not have the right to kill him. In other words, an attacker’s actions against you remove the moral wrongness of killing as it applies to him.
Virtue Ethics:
The moral rightness or wrongness is based on what a “virtuous” man would do. Throughout history there have been a great number of virtuous men (and women) that have acknowledged that self-defense is ones right.
Double Effect Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas:
Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one's assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him. Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” As Aquinas's discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
Just War Doctrine:
In reference to the “Just War Doctrine” Pope Pius XII says “[o]wing to the increasing destructiveness of weaponry … war can not be waged morally except as an act of self-defense.” So, then the flip side must be true. If war or battle is waged for the purpose of self-defense then it is done so morally.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=just war doctrine
As for Eastern Philosophy, all on has to do is look at how intertwined Eastern thought is with Martial Arts. In the Tao Te Ching the need for the use of weapons for defense is acknowledged. What separates the wise for others is the frame of mind one has regarding having to use such weapons. The wise choose to use weapons for defense when absolutely necessary but view having to use the weapons as a sad and solemn occasion.
Dr. Dickie
Member
In the end, to me, it comes down to a belief in evil or not.
Most of the touchy, feely, pacifists of today do not believe in the use of force for self-defense because they do not believe that some people are just plain evil.
Not necessarily in sense of the Biblical Satan evil, but evil as in people who know what they are doing is wrong and evil, but do it anyway. Some even get enjoyment out of doing it BECAUSE it is evil.
The pacifists think that trying to understand the motivation and underlying feelings of the evil person is the key to stopping them from being evil. They are not evil, they are simply misunderstood.
For pacifists like Ghandi, he succeeded because he knew that the British we not evil, and that by not giving them a reason for brutality their own moral compass would lead them to self-correction.
As a Taoist, I see evil as another manifestation of the Tao. If there is good, then there is evil, and we have a right to protect ourselves from evil.
The pacifists of today, want to blame society for the evil they see and call it misguided behavior.
BAH!
Most of the touchy, feely, pacifists of today do not believe in the use of force for self-defense because they do not believe that some people are just plain evil.
Not necessarily in sense of the Biblical Satan evil, but evil as in people who know what they are doing is wrong and evil, but do it anyway. Some even get enjoyment out of doing it BECAUSE it is evil.
The pacifists think that trying to understand the motivation and underlying feelings of the evil person is the key to stopping them from being evil. They are not evil, they are simply misunderstood.
For pacifists like Ghandi, he succeeded because he knew that the British we not evil, and that by not giving them a reason for brutality their own moral compass would lead them to self-correction.
As a Taoist, I see evil as another manifestation of the Tao. If there is good, then there is evil, and we have a right to protect ourselves from evil.
The pacifists of today, want to blame society for the evil they see and call it misguided behavior.
BAH!
Waywatcher
Member
This reminded me of an experience the other day. I was looking through a knife/gun/ammo catalog and thought how sad it is that there are so many ways to destroy human life. Doesn't mean I'm going to give up my guns and knives though.
I have thought about this a lot too. I am no daoist but I came to the same conclusion, without evil there can be no such thing as good, and vice versa. It would be a paradox, because they cant be measured in a vacuum.
Isildur...
You've already been bombarded with a great deal of good info regarding much of the written philosophical material that addresses this issue. It is one that I struggle with myself on a routine basis. So, in order to get you away from the more academic offerings that have been suggested...let me offer this:
As a teenager I read a great piece of science fiction titled Armor by John Steakley. It is an admittedly derivative work (borrowing the idea of a war with space bugs from Starship Troopers), but I do enjoy it and still read it frequently. In that book, one of the main characters explains that killing is never the right thing to do...just the last and worst possible choice you are left with as a result of all the very bad choices you made leading up to the killing. That is a sentiment that makes sense to me.
For an excellent cinematic exploration of this issue allow me to recommend a film called The Mission starring Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons. It does a commendable job of addressing both the religious and pragmatic implications of violence...largely leaving the viewer to come to his/her own conclusions regarding the rightness or wrongness of the characters.
The Mission
You've already been bombarded with a great deal of good info regarding much of the written philosophical material that addresses this issue. It is one that I struggle with myself on a routine basis. So, in order to get you away from the more academic offerings that have been suggested...let me offer this:
As a teenager I read a great piece of science fiction titled Armor by John Steakley. It is an admittedly derivative work (borrowing the idea of a war with space bugs from Starship Troopers), but I do enjoy it and still read it frequently. In that book, one of the main characters explains that killing is never the right thing to do...just the last and worst possible choice you are left with as a result of all the very bad choices you made leading up to the killing. That is a sentiment that makes sense to me.
For an excellent cinematic exploration of this issue allow me to recommend a film called The Mission starring Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons. It does a commendable job of addressing both the religious and pragmatic implications of violence...largely leaving the viewer to come to his/her own conclusions regarding the rightness or wrongness of the characters.
The Mission
Dr. Dickie said:
One of the strongest pacifists I know (knew) was a professor in college. He was a Holocaust survivor - the only one in his family to escape. He told me on time that all of the members of his family that he had known growing up were in the ash pit at Auschwitz. I am guessing the man had a pretty good idea about evil - probably more than you or I.
Mike
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
