The morality of self defense.

In frontier societies, you could reasonably expect to have to defend yourself. There were a lot of dangers lying around, and many criminals preying on settlers to make money. In modern societies, it doesn't really happen. In New York, unless you walk around Morningside Park in the small hours with an expensive looking purse and a visible iPod, you can expect not to have to deal with crime. When I got mugged, the situation was set up in such a way that I could've ended it by punching the guy.

The whole Heinleinian idea of rugged self-defense makes for great sci-fi - hell, I'm a big Firefly fan - but it's not much more applicable to real life than Harry Potter. Not when having a gun at home substantially increases your risk of getting murdered (about 75% of murders in the US are committed by acquaintances, the plurality circumstance being argument). And not when guns get stolen from law-abiding citizens all the time; there's a reason New York has insanely high murder rates compared to other cities of its size even though in terms of all other violent crimes it's incredibly safe.

I don't just think it's morally defensible to kill in self defense (assuming by "self defense" you mean killing someone who is going to kill you or another innocent party); it's a positive moral duty.

My training is a chemical engineer, so I look at this as a rate equation:

W/out Self Defense
Murderer + Innocent ----> Murderer

W/ Self Defense
Murderer + Defender (+ 1 or more Innocent) ---> Defender ( + Innocents)

Now, in the above, a "Murderer" is willing to kill to achieve trivial goals, an "Innocent" is unwilling to practice self defense, and a "Defender" is willing to kill, but only in self defense.

If we just look at what happens without self defense, the murderer goes free and continues on his way; in essence, we've reduced the number of people willing to pursue their goals in non-murderous means and increased the relative percentage of people who will kill to get their way. The Murderer is still available to continue to another reaction with another innocent.

With self defense, however, the number of people willing to kill for trivial reasons (which means anything beside self defense) goes down, and the percentage of "safe" people goes up, meaning the Innocents are less likely to meet a Murderer.

I realize this is simplistic and ignores many practical concerns, but I think it works as a basic framework on which to build.

There are those that think that killing any human being is wrong. I'm not one of them. Killing in the act of self defense is certainly not murder. If I feel physically threatened by someone who I also feel has the capability to kill me they have forfeited their life to me. This includes guns, knives, fists etc. That being said it's a judgement call that takes a lot of responsibility. If Brent threatens(assaults...it's the same thing) me with a knife he's met the criteria for me to kill him. If an 8 year old points a gun at me they've met the criteria as well. If a 90 year old cripple comes at me with their wheelchair with their dukes up...that does not meet the criteria.

Yes, killing in self defense if necessary is absolutely moral. ("If necessary" = sufficient risk judged to exist; fairly subjective, but that's in practice and does not hinder the moral concept behind it.)

It isn't a question of whose life is worth more, it is that the attacker is infringing on your rights and you are morally justified in defending yourself. If Stephen Hawking really tried to run me over with his wheelchair, I'd tip him over (or walk away faster than he could come after me, I guess).

On one hand self defense doesn't mean lethal force in which case it's totally defensible
On the other hand i feel lethal force IS murder, which maybe necessary, but still murder and thus should never be planned for, which case I feel carrying a gun is an expression of
On the gripping hand as an athiest in the end all I have is my life, and so unless I absolutely knew that it is imperative that the other guy lives, in the case of being in a kill or be killed situation i have to say i would choose the kill option.

Now self defense isn't called into question by the commentor, even lethal defense. what it says is that saying "Yeah I'd kill a dude" is morally/ethically indefensible.
it's being willing to kill that the commentor is questioning.
which outside the realm of one-or-both-of-you-MUST-die, I agree, the willingness to kill is indefensible.
as far as kill or be kill it's a question of selfishly deciding that my life means more than my attackers, whether that decision is defensible... I'm not really sure either.

Of course it would be morally defensible to use lethal force *if necessary* to defend yourself.

And, based on a few weeks of reading your stuff, I'm pretty certain that I would not fear someone like you carrying a concealed weapon in the presence of my family.

However (and I know this is not your question), I can think of a lot of yahoos who, if it were easy to do legally, would carry a weapon, and I would be very afraid having my family in their presence.

Due to military training, and fairly consistent use in the 25 years since, I am proficient in handguns and conscious of the safety requirements involved in their use, although I do not carry one, much less concealed. This is due to a number of reasons, none of which being I'm against guns or gun ownership. That out of the way, I would have to agree that deadly force (handgun or otherwise) is an appropriate response in self-defense or the defense of innocent and vulnerable bystanders.

Of course, you(I) may change your(my) mind after being the actual vendor of deadly force, but I think I would prefer to be alive and able to change my mind than dead and not.

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." Robert A Heinlien

That we have organized in geographical units and now hire others (firefighters, police, paramedics) to perform certain tasks does not relieve us of the natural responsibility we all have to protect ourselves and innocents. That said, RBH's caution should be taken seriously. When I do carry a gun, it is my sincere hope that the sight or sound of the weapon will be sufficient. Actually shooting is certainly the last resort.

Do you consider self-defense to be a morally/ethically defensible position, even if it results in the death of the attacker?

I say "yes", with a qualification. On the moral question I have no doubt. On the practical issue I have strong doubts. The qualification is training, training, training if one is to go the concealed carry route. As we're all aware, the probability of a friendly casualty resulting from the ready availability of personal firearms is waaaaay higher than the probability of using it effectively in self-defense. The CCW training typically given to civilians, while not a complete joke, is insufficient.

The above web site self defense training. and day-to-day living more information. to know more and more information self defense training.and martial arts.to the following web site
self defense

To answer your question -

Do you consider self-defense to be a morally/ethically defensible position, even if it results in the death of the attacker?

If you would simply give me a working definition of either 'moral' or 'ethical'. These are typically very subjective terms and as such my definition might vary wildly from your own. After all, if I emphatically declare that something is moral and you with equal enthusiasm delare that it is not then to what higher authority do we as atheists appeal for clarification? If you are asking if I would kill another human being in self defense then the answer is yes. The question of morality though is chock-a-block with subjective value judgements and frame of reference difficulties.

There was a radio program (Radio Lab)discussing morality, and I thought I would share: (The guy that posed this question on the internet had over 200,000 people take the following "Quiz".)

Scenario 1: You can see 5 guys working on the main track of a railway that are unaware of an oncoming train. There is a lever you can pull to divert the train to a siding where there is 1 guy working (also unaware). You see the train coming on the main track.
Do you divert the train resulting in 1 dead or do nothing and 5 die?
If I recall correctly, it was almost unanimous that they (the respondents to the questions) would divert the train.

Scenario 2: Instead of a lever and a siding, there is a man standing beside you on an bridge over the track.
Do you push the guy off the bridge thereby causing the train to stop in time to save the 5 guys?
The respondents were almost unanimous that they would not push the guy off.

The Big Question is: What's the difference?

The way I see it: self-defense is common-sense. If the government wants to stop us from defending ourselves, then we need to defend ourselves from the government.

You are trapped in a room with a killer. Both you and the killer have a gun. The room has one entrance with a door connected to a darkened hall. At random intervals, people come through the door and the killer shoots them dead. For whatever reason, the killer is no threat to you. What do you do?

Do you consider self-defense to be a morally/ethically defensible position, even if it results in the death of the attacker?

Pfft. That's an easy one. Yes. 100% morally/ethically defensible. It is defensible in every possible sense of the word. The person who wanted me, my family, my friends, or some innocents dead, is dead instead.

It is a very simple equation while it is happening.

I also consider it defensible in situations that are not strictly self-defense - like an offensive move against the enemy on a battlefield, or a pre-emptive strike against an identified threat.

The moral and ethical dilemmas come afterwards when you start to second-guess yourself - and your society investigates your actions in light of the facts which may not have been at your disposal.

Does that mean that you should not defend yourself, your family, your friends, or innocent bystanders because you might not have all the facts?

Of course not. The very idea is ridiculous. If you determine that your life, or their lives, are in danger, then you defend yourself, your family, your friends, and bystanders, and deal with the consequences later.

Your attacker is dead. You're not. That is pretty cut and dried morality in my book.

It's entirely defensible, in the clean abstract scenario you describe. But you pride yourself on your ability to be effective with the weapon, and judicious in its use. As a matter of principle, that's awesome. But in the messy reality we live in, weapons (and entire arsenals and armies) are often, if not usually, deployed ineffectively and unjustly. Moral inquiry really ought to begin with the murky reality, not the clean hypothetical.

But in the abstract, yes, I think humans are fairly well hard-wired to be willing to kill to protect themselves.

Johnny come lately here with my answer but here it is;
I reject any notion that self-defense is morally indefensible. There is never a scenario that would dictate allowing myself to be harmed for the sake of not hurting, to any extent, the one doing the harming.

Understandably there are ways one can decrease the potential damage, but that in no way is a reason to not use the reason you are most comfortable with, both physically and psychologically.

That commenter's tagline and direction to view it speaks volumes about their ideas of both fear and living; both appear skewed to me.

Carrying a gun as a possible defense against those who might seek to harm you is not living in fear but rather being prepared. Something too many Americans are unable to address properly.

I don't carry a gun but I have no opposition to it whatsoever. I have even encouraged it.

But I am also lacking preparedness in other areas. Something I need to address.

But none of my lack of preparedness stems from the type of fear this commenter's tagline would seem to indicate.

I'm rambling now, I'll shut up.

Love your work Jim! I don't recall, do you live in AZ? If so, you should definitely join us for a drink next time around! Drop me an email and I'll be sure you get invited...

It's entirely defensible, in the clean abstract scenario you describe. But you pride yourself on your ability to be effective with the weapon, and judicious in its use. As a matter of principle, that's awesome. But in the messy reality we live in, weapons (and entire arsenals and armies) are often, if not usually, deployed ineffectively and unjustly. Moral inquiry really ought to begin with the murky reality, not the clean hypothetical.

But in the abstract, yes, I think humans are fairly well hard-wired to be willing to kill to protect themselves. the above article is very interesting for self defense video and martial arts video is good. to following the self defense and martial arts to this article
self defense video