Is Grotius’ view of self-defence too permissive?
According to Grotius, self-defence is a just reason for killing as one is “not bound to submit to the danger or mischief intended” and in order to defend oneself, one has the just cause to seek resolution by force, and killing is permissible. Grotius also characterized a state's right of self-defense to include the right to forcibly forestall an attack, which encourages preemptive wars and thus the initiation to break peace once one side has reported confirming hostile actions from the opposing side.
The paper seeks to prove that Grotius’ view of self-defence is not too permissive. The paper will first discuss the definition, criteria and limitations of self-defence in
…show more content…
When our lives are threatened with immediate danger and that the danger cannot otherwise be avoided, it is lawful to kill the aggressor. The problem of this statement lies within the identification of threat – for instance, it is controversial to identify the aggressor in cases like mistaking a person with another (who is threatening), being scared by a mad man with frenzy, or threatened by a man walking in his sleep. Grotius thinks that these cases do not deprive individuals of the rights of self-defence against those persons. He agrees that exercising the rights of self-defence in such cases may arouse controversies as those people who are said to be killed out of self-defence obstruct the defence system unintentionally – innocents are being killed in the name of self-defence. However, Grotius argues that it is only natural to put our own preservation above all other considerations, such as the welfare of society. Grotius quoted Thomas Aquinas for saying “in actual self-defence no man can be said to be purposely killed”. It must be noted that according to Grotius, the death of any one in cases of self-defence was not the primary object intended, but rather, employed as the only means of security, and since there is no other way for a person to save himself, the death of the aggressor inevitably
The use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if defender has reason to believe He/She/is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault battery
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
In order for a political theorist to adequately theorize political structures, theories, strategies he must first deconstruct the basis of society. By first deconstructing society, the theorist is then able to reconstruct society and simultaneously elaborate on each component of society to then theorize on effective political structures. Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, and Machiavelli each followed this process in creating their political theories and at the very center of each of their theories is a commentary on human conflict. Self-defense is the very first type of conflict between humans and is defined very differently by each theorist. The subject of self-defense renders the foundation of a political theory in that it illustrates a theorist’s presumptions regarding human nature and interaction, which extrapolates into how humans need to be governed.
Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...
I found two other ideas, which the “Gentleman” propagated, interesting. Firstly, the idea of self-defense is evil that is based on the philosophical justification that life is most precious and that if one were to kill, it would be hypocrisy. The “Gentleman” essentially argues that any nation cannot defend itself without killing, and thus is unable to j...
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
Now that we have seen the shortcomings of two popular views of violence, Coady proposes his positive account; namely, that we ought to adopt a restricted definition. He begins with a dictionary definition (physical force with intent to damage/injure another), but he then observes that this is too restrictive and that we ought to include some psychological considerations. A restricted definition, Coady argues, is less morally loaded than the other two views given that it allows us to call an act a violent one without being committed (at least not as committed as the other views) to a certain ethical
The right of self-defense for states is also justified by the premise that it is the duty of the government to protect the people. John Locke's "State of Nature" argues that groups create governments to defend against others and in that process create a more fit community that protects life, liberty, and estate.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The four criminal law elements of self-defense are nonaggressor, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Nonaggressor is when the defender did not in any way provoke or stray an attack. When it comes to self-defense it is only available when it comes to unprovoked attacks. If one provokes someone they cannot use self-defense to defend themselves from the attack because they provoked it. However there is one exception and that is the withdrawal exception. The withdrawal exception is when the initial aggressor withdrawals completely from the attack they provoked they can defend themselves against their initial victims. An example of nonaggressor self-defense is Melody hanging out at the bar by herself and Samantha comes up to her trying
This case, among many others have caused our legal system to decide whose rights should be upheld, the victims or the aggressors? In this paper the history of self-defense laws, psychological benefits, and societal benefits will be discussed. Ultimately, the evidence shown throughout this essay will prove the absolute necessity of self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws. Not only does Stand Your Ground shift the focus of criminal law from victim to perpetrator (as it should be), our right to self-defense is written in the Constitution, and studies have shown that Stand Your Ground deters criminal behavior. (Holliday, 2012) Although some find Stand Your Ground as an open door for racial biases in criminal proceedings, the studies that prove that statement to be true are not taking into account the background and environment that the crimes occur in, simply looking at race and not any other factor of the case is not enough to prove a racial
Decisions are the basis of human history, advancement, and modern society. Important decisions often cause a conflict within a person as he or she attempts to make a choice based on what he or she believes is right, as well as what he or she believes is wise. Throughout life and society, people find themselves at a crossroads of beliefs or thoughts with the justification of murder. This is due to the dissonance illustrated when they have mixed feelings with the idea that killing another human is wrong, although it seemingly appears unavoidable in certain situations. This inevitability is what justifies murder in the first place. These mixed feelings create a cognitive dissonance that impacts society in a detrimental manner because people in society care less about people being murdered due to the simple and common justification behind it.
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
If, however, he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirement of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is also no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially put to death. (101)
Stand your ground defense, a topic that has been inspired from all the senseless killings that has transpired in many communities nationwide. The essay will elaborate on the cause and effect of self-defense.
“I should perhaps stop to say explicitly that I am not claiming that people have a right to do anything whatever to save their lives. I think, rather, that there are drastic limits to the right of self-defense.” (p. 213) Thompson defends her argument on the basis of self-defense claiming that a person has the right to protect their own life and, though it may be regrettable, if