Arguments Against Self Defence

Self-defence is a defensive mechanic that is part of us human beings. It is a way that we act when we feel there is a need to protect ourselves from harm or death. We humans tend to carry weapons or have weapons in our homes to protect ourselves in times of robbery or even being held captive. There are those who learn martial arts or go to the gym to get stronger physically. In ancient times, if someone attacked us, it was not only permissible, but law to defend yourself. If someone ate a wild hallucinogenic mushroom and came and attacked you in a fit of provoked rage, then one would still protect themselves. However, when is it permissible to murder someone using self-defence? It is agreed upon by both Thomson and Otsuka and perhaps in general, that self-defence is acceptable against a villainous aggressor, a person who has evil intentions and is genuinely lethal (Unit Reader pg 34). However, the lines of moral permissibility become blurred with cases of innocence. …show more content…
These criteria are specifically aimed towards ‘villainous aggressors’, but what about against the innocence? It doesn’t seem morally permissible against those who stand under the innocent category. Personally, I agree to both authors arguments to some extent. Throughout this essay, I will compare the views of both Thompson and Otsuka of the innocent aggressor and threat and provide reason why I side with them in certain case, while including my views on their