The moral, ethical and just law of self-defense

If every man has the absolute right to protect his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property, to defend it by violence against violent invasion.

• To what extent does the liberty of defending property exceed?
• Is defending your property by the use of lethal force ethical and moral?
• If Mr. Green hires or accepts aid to defend his property and they kill someone is it in self-defense or is it premeditated murder?

 

Define ownership of property.

Does the value of the property exceed the cost of defending the property? Using lethal force does not always result in a fatality.

Property can be jointly owned so self-defense.

 

It could all depend on how you define personal property. Do you consider property delegated (which I suppose isn't the best word, but in the sense that the ownership has been affirmed through the state I suppose) by the state?

I was recommend to delve into the book For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, and I don't really agree with everything completely but the foundations of the ethical, legal, and political philosophy of Libertarianism I agree with. That being that nothing should be taken by force or through threat of force, now ideally you wouldn't have to defend your property by force but I think if you are being attacked with lethal force it is morally acceptable to defend absolutely held property with equal force. You can only use equal force though. So if someone is coming at you with a fist trying to take your cell phone I don't find it morally acceptable to pull out your .45 and pop them in the head.

 

Anything that is owned entirely by you.

Yes and no.

One scenario, you kill someone in protection of an invasion against someone trying to take your possessions, all of which are withing the price of a normal household budget.

Two, Mr. Green's estate is worth millions, including his possessions.

It is usually the intent with hired and self protection.

If you hire people(s) to guard your estate 9/10 they're armed guards with the intent to kill as anyone robbing your estate has clear acknowledgement of what they're trying to accumulate. Within a average house hold if an invasion does occur it is common instinct to do whatever is necessary to protect your assets.

What if it is entirely owned by you and your guards kill someone?

IF your cell phone is your property, entirely owned by you, confirming your ownership why is it not considered protecting yourself by a violent invasion. If the person taking your cellphone pushes you down and threatens to kill you is it safe to say defensive violence may only be used against an actual or directly threatened invasion of a person’s property? Although you're on the street, a breach of security and violence are being inflicted.

Basically, i'm trying to figure out how extensive is a man’s right of self-defense of person and property.

 

It really depends on the situation.

If there is a guy armed with a gun, and you accidentally kill him with a baseball bat when defending yourself, (aside from being a badass), I don't think anyone can criticise you morally.

If however you shoot someone for breaking into your house unarmed to steal your phone or something, despite what any laws say, you are defiantly morally in the wrong.

 

Obviously killing someone over replaceable possessions.

It depends. What are you defending yourself from? What will your justification for killing another person? These aren't things that there really is an answer to. It's really just subjective to the individual in the situation. Living where I do most people agree that lethal force for protection of property is perfectly ethical. I don't agree with most around me and my opinion is much more sophisticated than "shoot them on the spot".

I wouldn't call it self-defense because that's a horrid term for the situation but I would call it "legal murder". Honestly though things are so much more complicated than "and they kill someone". It depends on each and every situation.

Uhh, fuck that. If ANYONE threatens my life or more importantly the life of my family I will do anything in my power to stop that threat. I agree if someone if trying take my cell phone or someshit with their hands I'm not going to try to kill them but if someone is on my property/in my house and they assault me, then "morality" is off the table.

 

So in your opinion it is moral and ethically wrong to shoot someone for intruding but does fall within the rights of the law, therefore making it justifiable?

I feel as if your entire statement is a contradiction. You defend the argument of it being ethically unjust yet if someone causes harm to you or anyone you know it's acceptable to react, possibly killing.

When is any robbery/mugging ever not threatening? Regardless of the situation if someone is trying to take property from you it's considered a threat, therefore being, in your standards, ok to react. If you have the right to defend your property with violence against violent invasion this applies to all scenarios as someone is trying to take something from you.

 

If someone is trying to take property from me it's considered a threat?

Not necessarily.

Not contradictory whatsoever. It depends entirely on the situation and the individual(s) at hand. As I said before, a simple unarmed cell phone mugging on the street, I don't think merits murder for self defense. But if someone was in my house ect and they attacked me/family I think you have all the rights you need. I think the line here really depends on the situation.

Guy running away with ur crap? Don't shoot him in the back...

Guy pulls knife on you in your home or for your wallet? Defend your life.

It's pretty simple.

 

When is someone trying to take your property not a threat. I don't know how they do it where you live but in DC you're not going to be asked "please give me your wallet".

 

Well lawfully you have the right to defend yourself with as much force needed but NO MORE.

Honestly do you want me to draw a "Fuck with someone this much and you die scale"? It's DIFFERENT person by person culture by culture. No ones sole opinion can be the ethical or moral law. I have given you a few simple examples and if you don't understand how I feel about the issue then that's your problem.

Obviously avoid killing anything unless necessary. You're trying to understand at what point it becomes necessary. You will have to decide that for yourself.


Edit:

I've never been mugged but It wouldn't be too far off to hear someone from utah ask "please give me your wallet" lolol

 

Legally you are only allowed to use the same amount of force that has been initiated against you. If someone pulls a gun on you and says I am going to kill you then you are legally allowed to take the same amount of force to protect yourself. If someone snatches your bag while sitting on the subway you can't pull out a gun and shoot them dead. There is a difference between larceny and robbery so you have to first define what the circumstances of the crime are. Robbery is considered a violent crime as it uses coercive forces to take things that don't belong to you. Larceny is a nonviolent crime as there is no violent action, just the taking of property with the intent to keep.


If someone comes into your house you can't just whip out a gun and shoot them. That is against the law. Now if they have a gun or some sort of weapon in their hand that can prove a direct threat to your person you are allowed to use equal force to defend yourself depending on what state you live in. Consider the defense of property defense: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/defense-of-property/

Morally it all depends on what moral school of thought you subscribe to. Take Kantianism for example. Kant says take the situation and try and apply it universally and see if it is reasonable. Would the world correctly function if everyone killed everyone else who stepped into their house with intent to take personal property? Probably not, that would be quite unreasonable.

 

An invasion of property is blatantly an invasion of property. It follows that defensive violence may only be used against an actual or directly threatened invasion of a person’s property—and may not be used against any nonviolent “harm”. In other words, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself. Now, eliminating the gun, the offender verbally threatens you, if the threat of aggression is palpable, immediate, and direct, it gives you the allowance of violent defense against your attacker (whether physically attacking or not) because he's obtained your obedience and has once again, extracted the money from you.

I'm not disagreeing nor calling you incorrect, i find it strange you do not feel the need to take necessary action to an offender even if he is "running away" as you say. That's all :embar: Just trying to figure out how people think.

Edit: Reading Nero's post

Edit 2:

I agree and disagree with you on this. Although there are laws implemented into the judicial system that state such factors, civilians are granted some leniency. If the average person is being robbed or in some way ordered to give a possession the average person will react without clear knowledge of their actions a second before they do it. The average person will argue he/she was not aware of the intent nor the weapons he may or may not have had and any good lawyer will defend them by agreeing (it's been done plenty of times).

Now, to your subway theory. Lets change the scenario and say the attacker pushed or bumped the attackee. This person now feels threatened for his/her life evidently being physically assaulted. Is this considered a violent invasion?

 

There is a very thin line between threat of force and initiated force. Some states with the stand your ground act consider strange or suspicious behavior that is threatening enough reason to initiate preemptive force. Other states contend that a direct use of force must be initiated so that your force is reactionary. Also intent plays little role. I can believe whatever the hell I want, but there must be facts that support the case that I was in legitimate fear for my life such as the brandishing of a weapon. So if someone bumps into me or moves me out of the way then that isn't sufficient force to excuse deadly force.

 

Right, but if they're taking your possessions while doing so one would feel threatened for his/her life, giving them cause to react with violent action.

 

Define violence. Are you saying violence as in an attempt to regain property and detain them that is in no way a serious threat of bodily harm or death or violence in the way that you will cause them serious bodily harm or possible death? There are many varying degrees of reactions.

 

To cause physical harm.