INTRODUCTION
Self-defense is an innate sense of humanity. Human being has never surrendered against any unfair and illegitimate act and considers defense against such acts, as his natural right since he innately reciprocates the danger. Thus human life is sacred and the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for the society. Today we live in a world that human life is under threat day in, day out and there seems to be decay in the culture inherently attributed to the dignity of the human person, this therefore calls for a rethink in the bid to promote such values positively. On what principle is self-defense morally justified, and how far may one go in defending one's own right to life? This work shall be looking at the moral justification for self-defense.
THE CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE: Karl Peschke, defines Self-defense as “the violent resistance against an actual and unjust threat to oneself or a third person.” He goes further to say that this may include the killing of the unjust aggressor, if he or she threatens vital goods of a person (351-352). From his own perspective Self-defense is by all means, especially under threat a just means to defend oneself as an essential and rightful act, under undue intrusion by a foreign party.
MORALITY OF SELF-DEFENSE: The right to arm self-preservation is derived from Greco-Roman Natural rights theory, clearly enunciated by the Roman statesman Cicero and other Stoic philosophers, influenced by Aristotle. Some Scholars of law have referred to the concept of natural law for justifying the self-defense. They argue that the necessity for human survival is defending him-self, since life is a natural right and heavenly gift. Therefore, defending it is also necessary. This theory was first introduced by Cicerone, the Roman philosopher, and then others also supported it. Cicerone believes that self-defense is a natural rule and not a civil one. Nature has delegated self-defense to human, rather than being granted as a result of regulations. Jean-Jacques Rousseau justified self-defense by resorting to the social contract, he believes that man is a social being and should live in society with his fellows and he is required to abide by the rights and systems necessary for the preservation and conservation of community. This is an obligation spontaneously created as soon as the person enters the society and accepts the fellowship (Parkviz, Khali and Mina Web).
The English philosopher John Locke in support of self-defense, posited that natural rights were self-evident and gave man power “to pursue life, health, liberty and possessions” (Miguel Web).
SELF DEFENSE IN THE SCRIPTURE
In certain passages of the bible we see certain pointer that justifies self-defense, some of which includes: Ex 22:2 particularly refers to the question of self-defense. It permits the killing of a thief breaking in during the night. If he was robbing during daytime, it was not allowed to kill him, probably because the one concerned could call for help or recognize the robber more easily (Peschke 353). In Luke 22: 36b scripture highlights thus, “And if anyone is without a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one.” Again in Prov. 25: 26 a righteous man who gives way to the wicked is likened to a polluted fountain or a muddied spring. This affirms self-defense.
The psalmist also justifies self-defense when it tells us that the Lord trains our arms for war and our fingers for battle; most likely in a war or battle there is a certainty that the blood of the attacking nation would be spilled (cf Ps. 144:1).
CONDITIONS FOR THE LICITNESS OF SELF DEFENSE
Can we ever permissibly kill others in self-defense, and if we can, what is the moral principle that permits such lethal act?
The aggression must be actual: It is not lawful to kill one whose attack is not imminent. Proximity of danger should be understood in a moral sense, that is, the aggressor should be in the act of aggression in such a way that the aggression is said to have begun and the innocent party cannot in any way escape it. It is also not lawful to kill the unjust aggressor after he has ceased attacking. This will not be self-defense, but revenge.
The aggression should be unjust: The aggressor has no right to attack, even if he is without guilt, as in the case of a mad man. Even if one has provoked the aggressor to anger by a slap or abusive language, the latter has no right to attack the former’s life.
The good which one defends must be of a great value: One’s life, the integrity of one’s body, freedom in the case of a woman her corporal virginity, and even material goods of a person that are essential to life and which could not be regained by legitimate means, are goods which one can defend even to the point of causing the death of an unjust aggressor.
The defense must be in keeping with the threat of attack: Moderation in blameless defense must be observed. An unjust aggressor should not be injured more than is absolutely necessary to ensure self-protection. It is therefore unlawful to kill an aggressor if one can defend himself by flight, by hiding, or even by wounding or mutilating him (Pazhayampallil 1065-1066).
THEOLOGIANS AND THE CHURCH’S POSITION ON SELF-DEFENSE
St. Augustine however approves of the right to self-defense. In scholastic and later theology, the right to self-defense is generally accepted. (Peschke 353). St Thomas Aquinas asserts thus, “if in defending oneself against a murderous and unjust attack, one kills the assailant, there is no murder, but blameless self-defense. The act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being, as far as possible. If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful; whereas if he repels force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense (Summa Theologae, II-II, 64. 7).
Pope john Paul II in his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”, 25 March 1995 argues: “to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present is particularly a serious sin. Only God is the master of life, yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of a legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense.
Moreover, legitimate defense can be not only a right but also a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of lack of use of reason (Pazhayampallil 1064).
CONCLUSION
We have a legitimate right to self-defense based on rightly ordered self-love. We have a duty to protect those in our care, such as our families. The Church’s guiding principles brings forth the fact that we all have the right to life and defend our being, in holding on to this fact we are to note that force must be held and used in moderation and that killing of an aggressor must never be intended yet could be a last resort in grievous situations.
