(Disclaimer: The article written in this post were taken from the book entitled "Ethics or Moral Philosophy" by Alfredo Panizo, O.P.. All of the ideas here are not my own. All of it belongs to the author. I posted this article for its valuable information. Enjoy reading!)
1. Man's right to life involves duties connected not only with the normal and abnormal conditions of life, during health and sickness, but also with particular circumstances, as self-defense in case of unjust attack. Since our life is a physical reality, it is most suitable to protect it by juridical rights, i.e. by rights warranted by coercion or physical force. These rights must be primarily enforced by public authority. But it is not always possible for the public authority to act immediately. Consequently, the defense of the right should be effective by private individuals.
2. Killing a person in self-defense, that is, killing an unjust aggressor, is not murder but a morally justified action because of man's rights and duties to preserve his life, provided the following conditions are verified:
A) The aggression must be actual and unjust. Any person, even parents, can be considered actual and unjust aggressors when real intentions of killing are manifested by some external conditions and actions such as an extremely violent mood or the perceptible reaching for a gun, knife, or any other lethal weapon.
After the act of aggression, killing is no longer self-defense, but revenge, as for instance, when a woman kills the man who had raped her. But a thief may be killed on the spot if there is no other way to prevent him from stealing or taking away a sizable amount of money or valuable things.
B) The good to be defended must be of great importance to life. Such goods are; besides life, integrity of one's body, liberty, chastity, and material goods of great value. In defending material goods of small value, an unjust aggressor cannot be killed because of the disproportion to the evil done. But killing is justified in case the assailant makes an attempt on the life of the owner. One can also defend the life and property of other people and the common good of the nation, even as he may defend his own. An arsonist, for example, may be killed if he is seen preparing to burn a city or to blow up a bridge, a building, vessels, military fortifications and ammunitions, etc.
3. Self-defense must be moderate. The assailant must be repelled by a blameless defense which will cause him no injury that is absolutely necessary to insure self-protection. Killing for self-defense may become murder if the assailant could have been easily rendered harmless by wounding him. It seems, however, not so easy to keep one-self within the bounds of moderate self-defense in sudden cases of assault.
A person ceases to be an aggressor the moment he chooses to flee; or when he begs for mercy; or when he surrenders himself to public authority. Killing should be avoided whenever possible, by running away from the aggressor, by calling upon the public authority, or by fighting the aggressor off.
4. The right to self-defense is derived from the right to life. But there is no duty of self-defense when this involves extraordinary efforts as killing the assailant.
Circumstances, however, can make self-defense a duty of justice as in the case of officers of the law who are in charge of national security. It can also become a natural duty, as husbands defending their wives; parents defending their children; or a duty of charity as in casual bystanders in case of unjust aggression on any person.
5. From the point of view of the person attacked, unjust aggressors are also those assailants who have no real intention of killing because they are habitually or temporally unable to perform voluntary and deliberate acts, as the insane and intoxicated persons. Ignorance of the fact can make a person an unjust aggressor, as one who points a gun at another person not knowing that the gun is loaded. These persons are blameless because of their ignorance and lack of voluntariness, but the right to defend one's self is inviolable even in these unfortunate cases.
6. It is never morally justifiable to kill a person to defend one's honor from lies and slanders. Reputation is a great good but can neither be defended nor restored by killing the detractor. The practice of dueling to vindicate injuries or to settle private quarrels is an immoral action, in fact, a combination of murder and suicide
No comments:
Post a Comment