The Ethics of Killing in Self Defence:

A Social Contract Theory Perspective

E. Battaglia

PHIL302: Ethical Reasoning

January 14, 2021

 Introduction

In some states, citizens have the right to use deadly force to protect oneself from an

intruder in their home. The is a common law principle called the “castle doctrine.” In the 1980s

some state laws tackled the question of immunity from punishment for cases in which one uses

deadly force against one who enters another’s house illegally and by force. In 2005, Florida

passed a law that was related to the castle doctrine, saying that one is not required to treat, but

can fight back in self-defence when they feel their life is threatened. There are at least twenty-

five states where it is legal to fight back against an attacker. In 2011, Pennsylvania amended their

castle doctrine law to make legal to use deadly force outside of the home or one’s vehicle. When

one feels that there is an imminent threat of death or injury, and they cannot retreat safely or their

attacker is using a weapon, they are able to use deadly force in self-defence.1

There has been a lot of debate surrounding this issue. The issue of killing in self-defence

has long been a topic of discussion and continues to be a big issue today. Recently attacks

resulting in severe injury or death has been rising, and with it, the need for more effective ways

to defend oneself against these attacks. The castle doctrine provides one such effective ways to

defend oneself against attackers. However, with legalisation legalising the use of deadly force in

self-defence creates a debate of whether these types of laws are in fact just.

Position

Killing in self-defence is morally permissible according the Hobbes’ Social Contract

Theory.

Argument

1. If killing in self-defence ensures one’s right to do whatever they can to save their own

life, then killing in self-defence is morally right.

 2. Killing in self-defence ensures one’s right to do whatever they can to save their life

3. Therefore, killing in self-defence is morally right.

Justifications

Validity

My argument is valid because it is in proper modus ponens form.

Definitions

Killing in self-defence is the act of taking one’s life because they feel as though their life

is being threatened or there is a threat of serious injury. By morally right, I mean permissible.

Justification I

Hobbes’ social contract theory is the best ethical theory to defend killing in self-defence

because it discusses the right to defend one’s life in any way that they see fit, which includes

killing. Hobbes believed that one is forbidden from giving up their right to life. Social contract

theory is a better theory to argue whether or not it is morally right to kill in self-defence than

Kantian deontology or utilitarianism. Kantian deontology would posit that it is never morally

right to kill, and therefore, never morally right to do so in self-defence. Utilitarianism is not a

reliable way to analyse whether killing in self-defence is morally right because provided that one

person is trying to kill one other, it is a life for a life; therefore, there would be no net happiness

and no net unhappiness because they would cancel each other out. In both Kantian deontology

and utilitarianism, the issue of the morality killing in self-defence cannot be fully and reliably

analysed. Using Hobbes’ social contract theory, one can fully analyse the issue and come to a

clean solution to this problem.

 Justification II

According to Hobbes’ social contract theory, it is morally right to kill in self-defence. In

his work Leviathan, Hobbes says that “a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his

life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it

may be preserved.” Hobbes also explains that everyone has “the right of nature” which “is the

liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own

nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own

judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” 2 In applying Hobbes’

idea of the right or nature to the morality of killing in self-defence, one can easily say that killing

in self-defence is morally right because one is acting out his right of nature, or the freedom to do

whatever he can to save his own life.

Also, Hobbes explains that “there is nothing to which every man had not right by

nature.”3 This includes the right to kill another person. He also says that “if a covenant be made

wherein neither of the parties perform presently … in the condition of mere nature (which is a

condition of war of every man against every man) upon any reasonable suspicion, it is void.”4 By

attacking another person, an intruder breaks the social contract that gave up people’s right to kill,

and therefore, the person being attacked is not obligated to still stand by this contract.

Objections

Objection I

Hobbes’ social contract theory is not the best moral theory to analyse whether something

is morally right or wrong because it claims that morality is solely based upon how people within

a society believed one should act and how people should treat each other. This means that what

is considered moral is relative. Each society of people might have a different social contracts,
and each society might have different opinions of what is considered morally right and what is

considered to be morally wrong. For example, in India, it was considered morally right for a

woman to be burnt on a funeral pyre when their husband had died. In this society, the social

contract said that when a husband dies, the wife was to be burnt alive on a funeral pyre to

accompany their husband into the afterlife. In England, the social contract that people agreed to

said that the killing of wives when their husbands died was not morally permissible and would be

a breach in contract. Since social contract theory is relative, it is not a reliable way to analyse

whether an ethical issue is morally right or morally wrong.

Objection II

Although the attacker violated a social contract, it would still be wrong to kill them

because one can defend their life in other ways. There are other ways of defending one’s life.

One does not have to kill to preserve their right to life. One can fight back or flee when attacked

and by doing so still preserve their right to life. If a person is attacked they can fight back and

injure or knock out the attacker. They can also flee or hide. If one is attacked outside the home,

one can flee to a crowded place where there are other people who can help the victim of the

attack. There are many options available to one who’s life is threatened by an attacker.

Therefore, there is no reason why one should kill their attacker when there are many other

options to save their life.

Rebuttals

Rebuttal I

When one is analysing an ethical issue, they usually analyse these issues with the context

of their society and with the values of their own society. Societal values and societal contexts

differ throughout the world. No matter what theory one would use, the outcomes of analysing a
problem one would be influenced by their society’s values and norms. For example,

deontological rules would be influenced by the society that those rules were created in. Using

utilitarianism could just as easily be considered to be relative. Something that someone in one

society considers to create happiness in a situation, someone in a different society might not

believe that that something does not create happiness, because their definition of what happiness

is might be different.

Rebuttal II

Although there are other ways that one can protect their life against an attacker, there are

some situations where only the use of deadly force will be enough to save one’s own life. If the

attacker is far stronger and far faster than their victim, the victim might not have any other

options to save their life.

Conclusion

In this paper, I argued that it is morally right to kill in self-defence according to Hobbes’

social contract theory, which states that one has the right to protect their life by any means

necessary. I justified the use of Hobbes’ social contract theory to analyse the morality of killing

in self-defence. I objected to this by saying that Hobbes’ social contract theory is relative and

would differ between different societies, who have different standards about what is ethical;

therefore, social contract theory is an unreliable way determine the morality of an issue. I rebut

this by saying that this unreliability is also apparent in deontology and utilitarianism. I justify

the premise that when analysed in terms of Hobbes’ social contract theory, it is morally right to

kill in self-defence by saying that everyone has the right to protect their life by any means they

see fit, and that when someone breaks a social contract with someone, the other is not still bound

by the contract that was broken. I object to this justification by saying that there are other ways
that one can protect their life than killing someone, to which I rebut that sometimes there are no

other options.
1
1. “Self Defence and ‘Stand Your Ground’,” NCSL, National Conference of State Legislatures, May 26, 2020.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx.
2
2. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
3
3. Ibid.
4
4. Ibid.