I’ve already described myself as a martial pacifist,
one who does not go looking for fights, but nonetheless advocates preparedness
and self defense in pressing circumstances and this topic will reflect that. I
could bring up various incidents that no doubt have actually happened, but the
general circumstances are better to explain what the overall theme here is. An
assailant is killed by someone who defends themselves with a weapon, a rapist
is killed by the victim’s father after they catch them attempting or in the
act, a burglar is shot dead by a homeowner after they break in. These are just
a few of the somewhat unique situations that complicate homicide law and
jurisprudence and I think that this sort of distinction is not splitting hairs
at all. But we shouldn’t see this as purely retribution or restitution but
strive for equity and fairness in all situations as much as possible.
We tend to have two common options in our head when
a combat situation arises directly: fight or flight. This is based in a
biological response triggered by neurochemical reactions in the brain. In order
to preserve ourselves, humans will run in order to save themselves as opposed
to fighting what may be an opponent too great for us unless we are adequately
equipped. A fairly recent event comes to mind when talking about the fight or
flight response and it’s not pleasant. Whether Trayvon Martin provoked his
attacker or Zimmerman acted on a degree of racial bias against Martin and shot
him thinking that he was in immediate danger, the severity of the action
reflects something that has become acceptable in society: shoot first, ask
questions later. I’m not against the use of guns for self defense in a responsible
manner, but viewing them simply as tools for killing instead of waging war in
defense of justice and others reduces the gravity of their existence and
function. We use the gun for the primary purpose of defense, of course, but the
violent nature of it also necessitates that it be used with a great deal of
discipline and training. This is why gun permits are a good even if they also
limit the legality of higher grade weapons. There is a whole other issue with
the military having access to such powerful weapons and potentially abusing the
public’s trust in them by turning those things used to protect their rights
into objects that suppress those rights in the form of martial law or a
totalitarian state. Even the use of martial arts to defend oneself demand a
responsibility many people don’t think of when enjoying the brutality of MMA on
pay per view or the like. Of course there are rules involved, but a sense of
honor or discipline is not there as much when martial arts are used in a sport
context. It is very much an individual sort of sport, not something you can
share with a team to the same extent. You can have similar goals, but not the
same degree of individual will, training, and such. That aside, either way,
using weapons of any kind: guns, swords, knives, blunt objects, or fighting
with your body as a weapon, you should not take it to excess and view any
threat to you as an immediate or direct threat to your life at that moment. Of
course a mugger may just want your wallet, but they may want to take your life
to do so. But this does not mean you should kill them to stop this act.
Incapacitation or use of basic force can alleviate the situation just as well.
Diplomacy and negotiation can do the same for international conflicts. Of
course, these don’t always work, but the use of violence should be a last
resort, morally and ethically speaking.
There is such a thing as justice without sinking to
levels of vengeance and the violence associated with it. Martial pacifism is a
good buffer to temper out what can be otherwise excessively emotional incidents
that could lead to manslaughter. There are nuances in talking about justifiable
homicide or imperfect self defense? Not all homicide is justifiable, unless we
talk about fear of imminent danger to oneself or others. And immediate threats
do not always imply death, though humans are not so tough that we can’t be
killed in ways we think we could survive. And there is also the distinction
between life and wellbeing. Being raped is certainly a terrible scar on one’s
psyche, but one can reasonably get through it with therapy and support. To say
a person can kill another because they are going to rape someone or even have
been caught in the act seems to take it too far. This is not to say that I
condone rape at all or see it as a lesser crime, but killing someone takes away
any possibility of redemption or real justice in mediating differences and
punishing those who have done wrong in appropriate and humane ways. Rape does
damage a person, but does not take away their future entirely as death does.
Imperfect self defense is similar to the justifiable homicide concept in that
the reasoning behind using deadly force is not always justified. Bare fists are
not as much of a threat as a knife which is not as dangerous as a gun. This
sort of relationship of risks is part of imperfect self defense’s somewhat
slippery slope. Imperfect self defense does not reduce culpability, but only
the liability of one’s crimes.
I’m not saying one can’t use force to defend others
or oneself. That’s justified in many forms of pacifism to the extent that you
don’t use violence. Non resistant pacifism is an exception to this in that it
says even use of force is unethical because we should be able to always resolve
problems with words and not our hands to hurt others. Or there is a notion that
love always prevails as a virtue even if you have to die to prove it. Both of
these are unrealistic and idealistic in their approach to the real world where
this doesn’t always work. But we also shouldn’t resort to violent force to
solve problems that could be solved in forceful ways without the potential for
death or mortal injuries. If moderation in all good things is necessary for
moral behavior, as Aristotle at least implied, then protecting others should
not be taken to excess or deficit and use appropriate force for the situation.
As vile and contemptible as people may be, killing them does not take away
their crimes, nor vindicate those who have been victimized by them. I must
emphasize the idea of appropriate force, because it varies by situation.
Experience can dictate this, but without that, a dual principle of restraint
and assertiveness is key. You shouldn’t let your emotions overtake you. If a
criminal is raping your family member, it is not a justification for you to
kill them on account of the closeness you have with the person being violated.
And even someone being killed does not mean you should exact the same thing
against the one who did it. It doesn’t solve the problem of murderers overall,
nor does it really vindicate the one who was killed. Incapacitation, knocking
the person unconscious or otherwise keeping them under control should be the
first goal in neutralizing a tense and dangerous situation such as the ones I
brought up at the beginning. You should not simply eliminate the person, since
this negates a principle in justice that each crime is different and should be
judged by the evidence and nature of the individual who committed the offense.
As much as force can solve problems, violence should
never be our first impulse, unless the situation absolutely demands it. This
sort of discernment is difficult to gain, but can be done over time and
experience. Peace should be a goal, but we should not be opposed to fighting for
it when it is necessary. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.
No comments:
Post a Comment