Self-Defense & Its Morality

Before we approach the minutia of this topic it is critically important to remember the Gospel and our missionary vocation as Catholics and Christians. To this end, I used a depiction of martyrdom. There are circumstances in which there is a need for defense of one's body or another's, however, it should also be important to defend the soul of an assailant. If there is someone who has determined that their best course of action is to threaten another's life, well-being, and/or possible usurp possessions, then they are in need of prayers, help, compassion, etc. Bearing this in mind, the Church via its saints has developed the idea of self-defense, employing the only moral application of the principle of double effect. The use of force should be directed at disarmament and exacted proportionally to the clear and actual danger and/or the use, degree, direction, and method of force given by the assailant.

Using force in self-defense is always permissible when danger is more than slightly imminent. For example, if someone menacingly points a scissor at oneself, one would be morally justified in removing the scissors from their possession, by a proportionate force. Justifiably, if it were directed at a defenseless or less defensible (in comparison to the one holding the potential weapon)  human being and ill-intent is evident, the circumstances allow for a more hasty and prejudicial use of force. In the case of a gun being pointed, if one is comfortably trained in martial arts the use of deadly force is not necessary and may not be permissible, otherwise deadly force may be merited. This also has implications in government policy pertaining to weapon regulations.

As I can perceive, the only two circumstances which make The doctrine of Double Effect morally licit in the context of killing: is the killing of an assailant who seriously endangers/threatens the life of (1) oneself or (2) another when and only when a deadly force (which one would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm) is the only means which minimizes casualty/fatality and no more than matches the danger posed. In the line of duty, a police officer, due to the nature of the job, may be allowed to use greater force than any assailant because, in a suspect vs. officer situation, serious danger to the officer (and possibly bystanders) is far more likely than not. However, this does not permit universal nor at-will use of deadly force, and especially not if there is a worthwhile alternative to the use of deadly force e.g., martial arts, etc. Regarding self-defense, the same may be applied to the protection of the officer’s own life, with possibly even more prejudice. Apart from law enforcement, an individual may only match an assailant’s force if a gun is not involved. If a gun is involved, force should first if possible, be directed toward disarming the individual (physically or otherwise). If such an effort at least reasonably seems futile if not proven so, deadly force should first be directed toward disabling and not killing. In all circumstances, the killing of another human should be the absolute last recourse.

The idea of reducing violence by making certain weapons illegal is founded on good intentions but is not practically effective. The complete illegalization of guns removes the ability of the general public to use deadly force to the extent that may be necessary. It is myopic to remove weapons from the law-abiding citizens who may need to defend themselves against the non-law-abiding citizens. Despite and aside from the political nature of this issue, one should be allowed to arm themselves as they see fit to defend against another who may do likewise without good intent. Unfortunately, there are circumstances that make firearm defense moral and necessary. However, this does not necessarily justify having a stockpile of excess and/or needlessly high-powered weaponry.

In conclusion, there could possibly be papers written on each of the points I make briefly. Every person is created in the image and likeness (even if the likeness has been obscured over time) of God. Each person has a soul that dwells both already in either heaven or hell and after their death in heaven or hell. We are among them. If we have given our lives to God and are following his plan of love in our life, then consider (certainly not a universal principle) that you have already repented but they still need that time. Time to realizing how wrong they are/were. Perhaps, then it may be better that you lovingly offer your life, death, and intercession for their conversion, so that one day you may see them in heaven. Still the necessity of self-defense, and certainly that conducive to the Gospel, remains an important principle in everyone's life. Just as it was for the depicted St. Sebastian.

O God who so cares for me,

there is one thing alone I seek:

To dwell in your mighty heavens,

and avoid the sinful leavens.

For those who hurt me, I wish the same,

O Lord let me bear their blame.

O Lord I long to see you,

those who hurt me also do.

Though they may not realize.