Jul
02
When is deadly force justified?
Labels:
catholic belief,
criminal justice,
ethics,
news stories
After Joe Horn killed two burglars, a grand jury no-billed him. Apparently this shooting was legal. But when something is legal, it does not necessarily follow that it is ethical or moral. How does the Horn shooting stack up against Catholic moral philosophy?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church conveniently includes an entire article on the fifth commandment ("You shall not kill") which explains exactly when one may morally kill another human being. Paragraph 2264 declares,
[I]t is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
In principle, then, Catholic teaching allows the killing of another human being for the purpose of defending one's own life. We are stewards of the life God gave us, and we have a duty to keep it safe.
The Catechism has more to say. Paragraph 2263 explains:
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. The one is intended, the other is not."
Double effect is a philosophical principle of Thomas Aquinas, the source of the quotation in the paragraph above. The rule of double effect can be contrasted against consequentialism, commonly stated as "the ends justify the means." The essential difference between the two is that according to consequentialism, intention does not matter, while according to the rule of double effect, intention is key.
When consequentialism is applied to this situation, Horn's actions appear to be proper. If the ends justify the means, then the fact that Horn achieved a legitimately good end — the safeguarding of his own life — justifies the intentional killing that secured it.
Catholic moral teaching, however, rejects consequentialism in favor of the rule of double effect. And this rule, when applied to self-defense, demands that no more than the minimum amount of force necessary may be used to stop the threat. The Catechism quotes Aquinas, "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."
The problem in the Horn case is that Horn used more than necessary violence. In fact, in his situation, violence was not necessary at all. The surest way Horn could have defended himself against the burglars would have been to simply stay inside. Horns' actions are indefensible under the rule of double effect.
Earlier in this space, I argued that Horn's primary motivation was not self-defense at all. Though the details considered by the grand jury are sealed, it apparently concluded that self-defense was the justifying principle for Horn. But even if it qualifies as self-defense, it does not qualify as a morally acceptable action. Horn may not be a criminal, but he is culpable.
Logging you in...Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to...
Posts
Comments
DarwinCatholic · 873 weeks ago
So while I'm sympathetic to the goal of protecting your neighbor's property (even with a shotgun) I'm very unsympathetic to the idea of simply blasting the burgler after the fact.
I need to do some thinking about the passage from the catechism. I agree that one may not have the intention of killing an aggressor in isolation from stopping the aggressor. (Thus, if one ends up killing the aggressor in self defense, one's actions are just, but if the aggressor is lying helplessly on the ground, wounded, and you kill him anyway, you've committed murder.) However, I'm hesitant to speak of the actual act of self defense in strict terms of double effect, because it seems to me unconvincing to hold that one can point a gun at someone and fire without "intending" to kill that person.
However, since the catechism cites the principle, I clearly need to do some thinking on it.
Anna M · 873 weeks ago
In some cases, it is possible to point a gun at someone and simply intend to stop them. If a person shoots the attacker and they get hit in the chest, so that it stops them, but they don't die - if the shooter is satisfied with that, then killing the attacker wasn't their real motive, even if they expected the attacker to die.
Ginkgo100 38p · 873 weeks ago
Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat — not to kill, and not to not kill. When cops talk about duty weapons, they speak in terms of "stopping power," not "killing power." That is the proper motivation for anyone involved in a self-defense situation — stop the threat to your (or another's) life, not kill the aggressor. While the two are *usually* the same in effect (the surest stopping shot usually happens to be the deadliest shot), they are very different in intent.
"...the moral limits on his actions once he went out there with the shotgun would be exactly the same as those on the police officer...."
I don't think, as many have suggested, that Horn's actions should be judged by the same standard a police officer is held to. Police have a *duty* to confront criminals; to do otherwise would be dereliction of duty. (They also have a duty to be smart about it tactically, which is why I would never say that the undercover officer who witnessed the event failed to do his duty.)
Civilians don't have that duty. We don't live in the Wild West anymore, although Texas culture is often inclined that way. And Horn did not have the training to confront them, nor the authority of police. So in my opinion, he should not be held to an identical standard as a peace officer.