The Ethicality of Self-Defense Killings
There is one doctrine universal to all humans: thou shalt not murder. Although caveats have emerged depending on culture, religion, and ideology, we can all agree that, to at least some degree, murder is morally wrong. One of the major exceptions to this rule commonly cited in law is “murder in self-defense.” Although this sort of violence is widely accepted as justified, it is this practice I would like to argue against. In order to do this, I will argue solely from a moral perspective.
"The traditional response to this question is that both parties in the situation prefer their lives over the other’s lives, yet given that one person is the cause for this need to kill, the aggressor, you are ethically allowed to kill that aggressor."
First, I must ask you a complex question: What does it mean to be human? Though this question has many answers, there are two major ones that are the most relevant to the question surrounding self-defense killings. These are the capacity to do both good and evil, and the capacity to think critically. Now, imagine you are in a kill-or- be-killed situation. There is no chance to run or injure. Only your death or their death. What do you do? I’m guessing that the answer is that you would kill rather than be killed. Why? Why are you allowed to kill in self-defense? The traditional response to this question is that both parties in the situation prefer their lives over the other’s lives, yet given that one person is the cause for this need to kill, the aggressor, you are ethically allowed to kill that aggressor.
Though this rationalization may seem tidy and neat, I hardly think that this justifies killing another human being. Given that everyone, as we have established, is capable of both good and bad actions, both parties in this situation might be able to do good things following this event. Keep in mind that no person is purely evil: we are all just bodies with brains that make choices to do one or the other. Since both parties here are on equal footing, in respect to their humanity, killing is, as usual, not justified. Wiping a human being off the earth, an irreversible move, is never justified. Therefore, since it is not morally permissible to kill, it is obligatory to allow yourself to be killed, to die innocent rather than to live while having killed a fellow human. In recent history, those humans whom we look up to and admire the most, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Lech Walesa (to name a few) have all served as advocates for non-violent retaliation against oppressive or even murderous regimes. In addition, whether you believe in him or not, Jesus of Nazareth has surely been one of the greatest philosophical and ethical influences on the modern world, even though he may not have actually lived. In chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus argues for complete non-retaliation: “do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also…love your enemies.”
It is through imbibing these examples of people like Jesus and Rev. Dr. King, who risked their lives for the common good, that we as a people can progress, stronger and more peaceful than before. If this scenario were to ever occur to me, I would hope to know that maybe my sacrifice for my aggressor may have some sort of impact, whatever that impact may be. However, someone doing the right thing isn’t going to make as big a difference on the world as someone who makes a large mistake and learns from it. When I think of this, I can think of only one phrase: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” To be fair, this is a hard thing to do. Not only is it against one’s own intuition, but it involves offering up one’s life to another who has done them wrong. But, I promise you that this is the right thing to do. I say no matter what the situation, it is wrong to murder. Even with a gun pointed to your head.