Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Samana Johann]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

No, an "eye for an eye" describes *vengeance*, not self-defence. The former is violent retribution; the latter is protective.

So two eyes for the possibility of losing one... as if there is any different in thinking... as if protection could ever harm. Offensive can harm.

I'm sorry, but your words don't seem to have anything to do with mine; and they don't make sense to me. Perhaps you might try to express yourself more simply, rather than attempting a poetic, stream-of-consciousness, approach in a language that is not your own?

Obviously the matter of virtue and ethic is so far appart and utopian for yours, that it would take many lifetimes for yours. It's all just shared for those with some relation, those sick who could be healed, good householder.

It's impossible to speak on virtue with someone who can find such within oneself and such would just get annoyed and angry.

Your response is dismissive, and wrapped in incompletely-described gobbledygook. I regret that I cannot respond in the way the topic would seem to deserve.

How much harm is permissible in self defense ?

[Lagayascienza]

You tell us, Mr. Guru, Mr. purveyor of "virtue and ethic". Enlighten us. Tell us, how much harm is permissible in self-defence? It's a bit quiet here tonight so how about a little homily on that? Just for fun.

[Pattern-chaser]

How much harm is permissible in self defense ?

As quoted in your post:

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

[Samana Johann]

You tell us, Mr. Guru, Mr. purveyor of "virtue and ethic". Enlighten us. Tell us, how much harm is permissible in self-defence? It's a bit quiet here tonight so how about a little homily on that? Just for fun.

It had been told already, good householder.

[Lagayascienza]

How much harm is permissible in self-defense? That would be as much harm as is necessary for effective self-defence and no more. Depending on how much harm someone wants to do to you, it may be necessary to kill in self-defense and, sensibly, our law makes provision for this. If someone is obviously intent on killing you and has the means to do so (a gun, for example) then you can take whatever measures are necessary to prevent them killing you. That may necessitate you killing them. In such a case you would not be guilty of murder or manslaughter. In our law, self-defense is a full defense.

IMO, killing someone in self-defense is not just legally permissible but also morally permissible.

[Mounce574]

I believe the law interprets self defense is "whatever it takes to stop the threat." However the interpretation of how much force is used is a factor.
If you shoot a person and that stops them (But they are still alive) and they are no longer able to harm you, it is not okay to shoot them in the head 7 more times.
So not exactly in proportion to the attack. Because you won't be able to stop the threat if you use the same amount. For example- a small woman fighting off a large man would not (an ordinary person, not someone who has specialized training) win unless she picks up an "equalizer." Toe to toe she will lose. Gun versus gun relies on whoever can feasibly use the weapon better, statistically the person that shoots first is likely to win a gun fight.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, the principle of proportionality is relevant at law. It would be in play if you were arguing self-defense as a defendant in a murder trial. Even if it were found that excessive force had been used, self-defense can still be a partial legal defense, in which case a defendant in a murder trial might be found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. It will depend on the facts of the case.

Something like this is true in all jurisdictions in my country and it is probably the case in other Common Law jurisdictions. I'm not sure how it works in Civil Law countries but I'd be surprised if self-defense were not a legal defense there, too.

In a gun vs gun situation, it makes sense that the person that shoots first is likely to be the one left standing, so I guess it pays to be a bit trigger happy in such situations.

[Mounce574]

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws are effective in Oklahoma (United States). However, not all of states support them.
Another downside to this is that instead of attempted murder, Oklahoma has Shooting With Intent to Kill instead which carries a sentence that is not as harsh. I know my ex was sentenced to 20 years of probation, with no time in prison. They stopped probation in 2023 despite his conviction in 2014.
It sent me the message that I should stay armed at all times. He walks free and I was receiving text messages that weren't too friendly recently.

[Xenophon]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

[Samana Johann]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

... “Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of goodwill, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with goodwill and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with goodwill — abundant, enlarged, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.

“Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?”

“No, lord.”

“Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.” ...

[Samana Johann]

How much harm is permissible in self-defense? That would be as much harm as is necessary for effective self-defence and no more. Depending on how much harm someone wants to do to you, it may be necessary to kill in self-defense and, sensibly, our law makes provision for this. If someone is obviously intent on killing you and has the means to do so (a gun, for example) then you can take whatever measures are necessary to prevent them killing you. That may necessitate you killing them. In such a case you would not be guilty of murder or manslaughter. In our law, self-defense is a full defense.

IMO, killing someone in self-defense is not just legally permissible but also morally permissible.

It does not even work in an primitive eye-for-and-eye model, since "i would have lost an eye otherwise" is a pure assumption, as firing a nuke likewise "justifies" on pure assuming and arguing, like any harm does. Demo-cracy is't moral, tendency of nose not a judge.
Not a single wrongdoer does not simply out of this or that self-defending aspect, good householder. Or why does he think that he's doing to attack here and there?

[Belinda]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

There are degrees of violence and degrees of duration of violence. When a natural predator feels threatened , unless fired by a strong feeling of jealousy to guard possessions, weaker members of the predator species will demonstrate vulnerability for self defence.

Unfortunately , among the human species there is little of nature left in the psychology of some aggressive individuals : these psychopaths will not stop killing you even if you are demonstrably helpless.I assume you yourself have encountered psychopaths. Martial arts are good for defending yourself and if you don't have that skill then you are justified in killing or maiming the aggressor.

If the questioner intends to ask if there is such a thing as a just war, then that's a another though related question. The war of Israel against the Palestinians is not just because it's impossible to kill all the Hamas leaders by killing and eliminating non -combatants, There are internationally recognised rules for war.The 1914-1918 European war was unjust because it was a war of attrition, unlimited slaughters. The Second World War was justified self defence on the part of the Allies with the exception of the Atom bomb, and carpet bombing.

[Samana Johann]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

There are degrees of violence and degrees of duration of violence. When a natural predator feels threatened , unless fired by a strong feeling of jealousy to guard possessions, weaker members of the predator species will demonstrate vulnerability for self defence.

Unfortunately , among the human species there is little of nature left in the psychology of some aggressive individuals : these psychopaths will not stop killing you even if you are demonstrably helpless.I assume you yourself have encountered psychopaths. Martial arts are good for defending yourself and if you don't have that skill then you are justified in killing or maiming the aggressor.

If the questioner intends to ask if there is such a thing as a just war, then that's a another though related question. The war of Israel against the Palestinians is not just because it's impossible to kill all the Hamas leaders by killing and eliminating non -combatants, There are internationally recognised rules for war.The 1914-1918 European war was unjust because it was a war of attrition, unlimited slaughters. The Second World War was justified self defence on the part of the Allies with the exception of the Atom bomb, and carpet bombing.

What does good householder try to defend here? A weak nature? A counteroffensive on assumed endangering of what?

[David awunor]

My opinion on self-defense is that it involves causing harm until the aggressor is incapacitated and no longer able to cause harm.

[Lagayascienza]

Good householder defend self against all evil including charlatan. Maybe specially him.