Defensive killing

1
Introduction

Objectives:
1. Traditional check-list for self-defence
2. Who may be killed in self-defence and
why?
Initial restrictive account

Thomsons permissive account

Otsukas restrictive account

3. Utilitarianism on killing in self-defence

2
The traditional criteria for
self-defence
1. Imminence
The threat to your life must be proximate in time

Usually no pre-emptive strikes allowed

2. Necessity
Violence is the only means available to you to defuse

the threat
If you can escape by running away, then you are not

justified in using lethal defensive violence

3. Proportionality
The harm you inflict must be proportional to the threat

3
Who may be killed in self-
defence?
1. Fully responsible attacker who tries to kill
you or someone else
2. Innocent aggressors
3. Innocent bystanders
4. Innocent threats
5. Innocent shields

4
The Morally Responsible
Aggressor
Those who threaten our lives themselves
lose or forfeit the protection of a right to
life
Can we specify precise conditions for
forfeiture?

5
Getting around the
attackers right
Excusable wrong
Action is wrong, but we punish less harshly

Justified infringement
Action infringes the right, but is justified by good

consequences
Gappy right
The action does not infringe the right at all, in these

exceptional circumstances
Right includes exceptions (gaps) in extremes cases

6
Innocent bystander

Suppose you are Jack Bauer and a terrorist is trying to run

you over with a truck. Your only possible means of escape
is to blow up the truck with a bomb. However, the blast will
also kill an innocent bystander. In your opinion, is it
permissible to defend yourself with the bomb?

Are the traditional criteria met?

1. Is the threat imminent?
2. Is using the bomb necessary?
3. Is using the bomb proportionate to the threat?

7
Killing Innocents in Self-
defence
In specifying the conditions of forfeiture, it
is particularly important to keep an eye on
what happens to innocents

Who is an innocent?
Someone is an innocent, relative to a life-
threatening situation, if the person is in no
way morally responsible for the existence of
the threat

8
Thomsons distinctions
1. Innocent aggressor
Someone who is actively trying to kill you but is not morally responsible;

e.g. the drugged or drunk attacker

2. Innocent threat
Someone whose mere movements as a physical object constitutes a

threat on your life, e.g. car out of control

3. Innocent shields
Someone being used by a villainous aggressor as a shield

4. Innocent bystander
Someone who does not herself endanger your life. She simply happens

to be nearby and will be killed if you take the only available action to
defend your life against a villainous aggressor
Involuntary action, not in control of their bodies

Are these distinctions morally significant? Can you say why?

9
A Restrictive Account

Proposal: No innocent person may justifiably be harmed in

self-defence

Two supporting reasons:

1. One ought not to lose the right to life without having
done something to deserve it
2. Self-defence analogous to punishment
We dont punish innocents for being causally involved

in someones death
So by the same reasoning, we should not harm them

in self-defence

10
Quiz: Restrictive account

Which of the following is a case where Jack Bauer can

legitimately kill in self-defence?
A. Nina is fully responsible and trying to kill Jack with
an axe
B. Nina is fully responsible and trying to kill an
innocent stranger with an axe
C. Tony has been drugged, is not responsible and
trying to kill Jack
D. Tony has been drugged, is not responsible and
trying to kill an innocent stranger
11
An unintuitive
consequence?
You may not permissibly defend yourself
against the innocent aggressor
Excusable wrong?
But then, what about the defence of others?

12
A Permissive Account

Make the criterion for being a legitimate

target a causal criteria
Thomsons Killing Theory
CONDITION: If you dont harm X, X will kill
you
Whenever the condition is true of someone,
they lose their right to life & you may kill them
in self-defence

13
Quiz: Thomsons account

On Thomsons account, which of the following is a

case where Jack Bauer can legitimately kill in self-defence?
A. Nina is fully responsible and trying to kill Jack with an
axe
B. Nina in the truck is fully responsible and trying to kill
Jack but defending himself means killing Kim, who is
sitting next to Nina
C. Tony has been drugged, is not responsible and trying to
kill Jack
D. Richard has information about a nuclear bomb
somewhere in LA but is not surrendering the information

14
Legit targets of defensive
killing?

Villanous aggressors
Innocent aggressors
Innocent threats
Innocent bystanders
Innocent shields

15
Innocent Shields, Bystanders
and Thomsons condition
If you dont harm Kim, Kim will kill you =
FALSE
Why?
It is not Kim that will kill you, but the truck
being driven by the villainous aggressor

16
Innocent aggressors and
threats
If you dont harm Tony, he will kill you
= TRUE
If you dont shoot Richard, he will kill you =
TRUE?

17
DDE: Doctrine of Double
Effect
NB = Intentions
Intentional wrong action may be permissible if it
leads to foreseen consequences of doing
something else which is good
Killing someone is permissible if it leads to the
foreseen consequence of saving my own life
Thomson: This is problematic
Then people can do what they want & say they
had good intentions

18
Self defence in TROLLEY?
The lone worker has brought along his rifle. He sees Jack
about to pull the lever. Would it be permissible to shoot Jack
in self-defence?

Which of the following is true:

I. On Thomsons killing theory, the worker may harm Jack in self-
defence
II. On Thomson's account of Trolley, Jack is not threatening to
violate the workers right to life
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II
D. Neither

19
Answer: C. I and II
CONDITION: If lone worker does not kill Jack, Jack will kill
him
BUT: Since there was a magic moment earlier when the lone
worker would have consented to kill-one-to-save-five policy,
Jack is not killing him unjustly
Magic moment = Gappy right
Exceptional situation where the right to life is not relevant

His right to life is not about to be violated!

Thus: Contradiction in Thomsons view
The lone worker should BOTH be allowed and not be allowed
to shoot Jack

20
Otsukas Restrictive
Account
1. Thomsons permissive account allows
innocent threats to be killed, but not innocent
bystanders or shields
2. But there is no important moral difference
between IT, IB, or IS
3. So, Thomsons account is flawed

21
Moral equivalence of
Bystanders and Shields
Compare these degrees of involvement:
1. Bystander is standing by a cliff in my way of
escape
2. Bystander is beside the threatening truck
and will be killed if I blow it up
3. Same person has been put inside the truck,
which is being driven by remote control
She will be killed if I blow it up (now an innocent
shield)

22
Otsukas positive proposal

Otsuka asks: how can the presence or

absence of the innocent make a difference to
whether its a legit target?
Condition: If you dont harm X, X will be
morally responsible for killing you
Theory: Whenever the condition is true of
someone, you may harm him in self-defence
The right to life is lost by someone who is
threatening to violate someone elses right
23
Quiz: Otsukas positive
proposal
A hillbillly sick with rabies confronts you in the woods.
If you dont shoot him, you will be killed. Which of the
following are true:
I. If you dont harm the hillbillly, he will be morally
responsible for killing you
II. Otsukas theory entails that you must not harm the
hillbilly in self-defence
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II
D. Neither

24
Utilitarianism on killing in
self-defence
If people were obliged to passively submit to
attacks, everyone would be less secure
But if we retaliated with excessive force, killing
innocent bystanders, overall security would also be
diminished
So perhaps a standing policy that permits limited
self-defence has good consequences
A right to self-defence: For a utilitarian, talking
about rights can only ever be short-hand for saying
that there is a strong presumption in favour of
defending yourself

25
A right to self-defence

According to a utilitarian, in a case where your

life is threatened, it is permissible for you to
defend yourself only if:
I. Doing so will maximise utility
II. A hard and fast rule that allows people to
defend themselves has good consequences
III. No innocents are harmed

26
Unintuitive consequences?

Suppose you receive a strange death threat:

Im going to kill you and harvest your
organs in order to save five people

Defending yourself against this threat might

bring about less utility than submitting to the
threat!

27
More unintuitive
consequences
Everyone prefers that Barack Obama or Nelson
Mandela goes on living. But you? Less people
care about you than about Obama or Mandela.

28
Summing up our progress
so far
While Thomsons theory fits better with
intuition than a restrictive theory, reliance on
causal role in threat seems very specific
Otsukas theory has perhaps a more
plausible theoretical basis, but requires a big
revision of our intuitive judgements
A utilitarian approach may support a limited
right of self-defence, but will sometimes
demand a saintly standard of behaviour
29
Summing up our progress
so far
1. One ought not to infringe a right, unless that is the only way to
avoid a very bad outcome
2. The more stringent a right is, the harder it is to justify infringing it
3. Autonomous beings have a right to life (and perhaps other rights)
4. There are at least two types of killing which do not infringe the right
to life:
a) If there is a time at which it is to everyones advantage that we
adopt a policy of killing one to save others, then to follow that
policy does not infringe anyones right
b) If a person is an immediate threat to the life of another, then
they forfeit the right to life
5. If no rights are under threat, we ought to bring about the best
possible outcomes

30