@griz to them, undoubtedly. And at that moment i am 100% sure my life is in imminent danger, i am able to respond in kind. Maybe tbe person snapped, but it matters nothing at that point. One’s individual survival supersedes everything
@griz actually not. In this day and age it’s better by far not to interfere. There are good Samaritan laws, but let’s say you’re saving someone’s life and later get accused of some sort of misdeed. There was a recent article which states that men are afraid of giving/ refusing to give women CPR because of the #metoo campaign. Who cares if it’s heartless, i’ve decided long before giving up on Christianity that it’s not worth the risk.
And if i’m in a dangerous situation, i likely put myself there. I need to extricate myself without help.
@Jear77
Try living down having the ability to save a child . . . and choosing not to. Even if nobody ever knew . . . you would.
And it would destroy you from the inside out over time.
Yes, it is moral and ethical to kill someone in self defense, only if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in immanent peril. It is a matter of intent; your intent is to stop the threat.
Yes, if that person is threatening to end your life and you need to stop the threat. You have every right to stop someone from killing you. You need to end that eminent threat in an expedient way and not inflict any kind of torture. You will have to answer for your actions and intent in a court of law. The only acceptable reasoning has to be you needed to stop the threat on your life.
I have to add — because we have both had the experience —- that a husband making verbal threats, saying that he will kill you, and telling you how he will get rid of your body, IS NOT an eminent threat, because he is NOT in the act of actually killing you. In that case, you do have a chance to escape. If you can escape, then escaping stops the threat. Escaping is the preferred means of removing the threat. If you escape and/or stop the eminent act of being killed by making the would-be killer unable to kill you, THEN killing that person would be MURDER, because he was no longer able to carry out his killing of you.
If it is truly self-defense, it is obviously not a sin. But, it is better not to do so.
It is obviously morally and ethically justified because they were attempting to kill you.
Should a murderer live, and a victim of murder die, simply because of some far flung moral or ethical standards? Are moral and ethical standards not but a robotic, programmatic list of instructions some people attempt to blindly follow, as opposed to simply living with love in their hearts?
Reminds me of the sort of nonsensical conundrums the folks in The Good Place often find themselves in…
Regardless, the reason why the ‘nobodies of this world’ should not do so is because, ‘whomsoever kills with the sword must die by the sword’.
An obvious exception here is to police and military merely performing their authorized rights to use force.
(Though excessive force and poor judgment removes that authority, and they are guilty of the sin.)
It’s morally accepted by the society at large. You might be able to rationalize it, but it’ll probably bug you if you have a conscience, so you should just beat them into submission, and then instead of the death kill you help them up & they join you in fighting the evil space dictator until you impale him with a pointy spaceship.
Necessary, perhaps: in the genre of “lesser of two evils”. But one is still left with “an evil”, even if just a lesser one. (People who have killed in self-defense, who don’t bury or block it, seem to agree that it has a life-changing effect that isn’t positive.)
Open to incorrect interpretation, always. What if their “attack” is something akin to holding you back from stepping the cobra you didn’t see?
And overall, pondering justifications for killing someone (even someone you theoretically have not met yet), is fraught with pitfalls.
15 responses to “Is it moral or ethical to kill someone in self defense?”
The moment another person attacks with intent to kill you, their life should be meaningless to you
@Jear77 why should their life be meaningless to me? I don’t know their circumstances.
@Scarlett doesn’t matter. At that moment your life takes precedent to those considerations
@Jear77
How about if someone perceives you are attacking them?
Is your life worth nothing at that point?
@griz to them, undoubtedly. And at that moment i am 100% sure my life is in imminent danger, i am able to respond in kind. Maybe tbe person snapped, but it matters nothing at that point. One’s individual survival supersedes everything
@Jear77
Up until the point where we might need someone else to risk their life for our benefit!
Or where the willingness to forfeit our life might save a child, a loved one, or countless others.
Try living that one down.
@griz actually not. In this day and age it’s better by far not to interfere. There are good Samaritan laws, but let’s say you’re saving someone’s life and later get accused of some sort of misdeed. There was a recent article which states that men are afraid of giving/ refusing to give women CPR because of the #metoo campaign. Who cares if it’s heartless, i’ve decided long before giving up on Christianity that it’s not worth the risk.
And if i’m in a dangerous situation, i likely put myself there. I need to extricate myself without help.
@Jear77
Try living down having the ability to save a child . . . and choosing not to. Even if nobody ever knew . . . you would.
And it would destroy you from the inside out over time.
@griz not a chance for me. Ever. The risks are simply too high.
Yes, it is moral and ethical to kill someone in self defense, only if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in immanent peril. It is a matter of intent; your intent is to stop the threat.
Yes, if that person is threatening to end your life and you need to stop the threat. You have every right to stop someone from killing you. You need to end that eminent threat in an expedient way and not inflict any kind of torture. You will have to answer for your actions and intent in a court of law. The only acceptable reasoning has to be you needed to stop the threat on your life.
I have to add — because we have both had the experience —- that a husband making verbal threats, saying that he will kill you, and telling you how he will get rid of your body, IS NOT an eminent threat, because he is NOT in the act of actually killing you. In that case, you do have a chance to escape. If you can escape, then escaping stops the threat. Escaping is the preferred means of removing the threat. If you escape and/or stop the eminent act of being killed by making the would-be killer unable to kill you, THEN killing that person would be MURDER, because he was no longer able to carry out his killing of you.
If it is truly self-defense, it is obviously not a sin. But, it is better not to do so.
It is obviously morally and ethically justified because they were attempting to kill you.
Should a murderer live, and a victim of murder die, simply because of some far flung moral or ethical standards? Are moral and ethical standards not but a robotic, programmatic list of instructions some people attempt to blindly follow, as opposed to simply living with love in their hearts?
Reminds me of the sort of nonsensical conundrums the folks in The Good Place often find themselves in…
Regardless, the reason why the ‘nobodies of this world’ should not do so is because, ‘whomsoever kills with the sword must die by the sword’.
An obvious exception here is to police and military merely performing their authorized rights to use force.
(Though excessive force and poor judgment removes that authority, and they are guilty of the sin.)
It’s morally accepted by the society at large. You might be able to rationalize it, but it’ll probably bug you if you have a conscience, so you should just beat them into submission, and then instead of the death kill you help them up & they join you in fighting the evil space dictator until you impale him with a pointy spaceship.
It’s not moral or ethical, but it may be your only option at the time. It may be a necessary evil.
Ethical, no.
Necessary, perhaps: in the genre of “lesser of two evils”. But one is still left with “an evil”, even if just a lesser one. (People who have killed in self-defense, who don’t bury or block it, seem to agree that it has a life-changing effect that isn’t positive.)
Open to incorrect interpretation, always. What if their “attack” is something akin to holding you back from stepping the cobra you didn’t see?
And overall, pondering justifications for killing someone (even someone you theoretically have not met yet), is fraught with pitfalls.