MORALS

Thesis 5. Self-Defense
DEFINITION:
“It is the violent resistance against an actual and unjust threat to oneself or to a third
person. The defense may even include the killing of the unjust aggressor, if he or she threatens
vital goods of a person.” (Christian Ethics, Karl Pesche), 351-52.
CONDITIONS FOR SELF DEFENCE: (IT IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE IF)
a. The aggression must be unjust.
- One may resist an insane or intoxicated person in self-defense.
b. The aggression must be actual.
- imminent or present or still lasting. (e.g., Holdup).
c. The defense must limit itself to means that are proportionate to the gravity of the danger.
- Severely hurting and killing the aggressor(victimizer) is only allowed in defense of
great values, such as life, integrity of one’s members, bodily integrity in attempts of rape,
Temporal goods, of great value.
d. The resistance must be confined to that minimum of violence that is necessary and
sufficient to obtain the justified purpose of defense.
- Among various possible means the least harmful to the aggressor must always be
chosen.
e.g., If one can flight to save one’s life then he may do so.
ARGUMENTS IN JUSTIFICATION OF SELF-DEFENCE
a). Holy Scripture and Tradition
Scripture: OT, Gen 22:2 (Concerning the Thief)
NT. Jesus’ teaching against the right to self-defense: Mt 5:39; Jn 18:22
St. Paul on overcoming good with evil (Rom 12:21; 1 Cor 6:7); Acts 23:2

b). The arguments of reason.

1. There exists a natural order of Law, which assures every individual and every
community the rights necessary to their existence and connatural development. At the same time
this order obliges one to respect the identical right of other people and communities. The
Existence and inviolability of such a natural order of law follows from the fact that without well-
ordered human life and successful development would be impossible.
 2. Regard for the people entrusted to one’s care (one’s family, the welfare of the
community or organization) and regard for a committed work very often not only justify but
demand defense against an unjust aggressor. The same commandment of love, w/c commands
one to spare an evildoer as far as possible, also commands to protect the welfare of our unjustly
endangered neighbors.
3. A last argument of self-defense is taken from the evil consequences of the contrary; it
is implicitly already present in the first. If those attempting robbery or murder were inviolable
before a private person, the latter would be exposed to all forms of ruthless violence without
sufficient protection. This inviolability would encourage brutal individuals to commit even more
crimes and thus multiply them.
There is generally no obligation to defend one’s right by means of killing aggressor.
Christian love may refrain from taking the life of an unjust aggressor and choose to suffer
injustice. But one would be obliged to disable an aggressor in self-defense if one’s life were
necessary for the support and protection of one’s family or of community.
Source: Christian Ethics II, on Self -Defense pp. 351-355.