7. Critically evaluate Thomson’s account of when killing in self-defence is morally permissible. Introduction
The question of whether ever morally permissible to kill in self-defence is difficult as there can be so many combinations. In this article I am limiting the discussion to where your actions, which are the only way to save your life, result in one other person dying. Thompson in her article on self-defence, supports the general notion that most people feel in that if you are innocent then you are morally correct in defending yourself against an aggressor. Her argument separates the person who will die into groups of aggressor, innocent aggressor and bystander, then attempts to explain why killing some is morally acceptable and others …show more content…
There is the obvious real life case where the police come across two men, one is dead and the other claims self-defence, no-one else is around and there are no external circumstances so the courts must accept self-defence. What happened is a black box, two men and a threat entered, something happened, and one man came out. Morally without more information we cannot make any determination.
It is this final statement, of the lack of a final moral determination, that may cause some to reject a black box approach but again I disagree as I think this is actually the point and why Thompson is wrong with the Innocent Bystander (IB).
Taking Thompson’s aggressors cases, they would fit in well with the previous scenario, if we knew the man who died was the aggressors and actively trying to kill the other, we would assign self-defence. There seems to be a moral right, if we are innocent to defend our life even if that causes the aggressors death. (Ignoring some stances that killing is never morally right, and a physicalist I feel that your life is all you have and you have a right to protect it)
Thompson’s Trolley …show more content…
In this case you have been captured by others and connected via tubes to a person to act as their life support till they heal, without you they will die, but it will kill you in the end though by that time the other will be able to survive. Your only action to survive it to perform an action (Disconnection) that will result in the other person dying. Her argument it that another person does not have the right to cause your death to allow them to
The question of whether ever morally permissible to kill in self-defence is difficult as there can be so many combinations. In this article I am limiting the discussion to where your actions, which are the only way to save your life, result in one other person dying. Thompson in her article on self-defence, supports the general notion that most people feel in that if you are innocent then you are morally correct in defending yourself against an aggressor. Her argument separates the person who will die into groups of aggressor, innocent aggressor and bystander, then attempts to explain why killing some is morally acceptable and others …show more content…
There is the obvious real life case where the police come across two men, one is dead and the other claims self-defence, no-one else is around and there are no external circumstances so the courts must accept self-defence. What happened is a black box, two men and a threat entered, something happened, and one man came out. Morally without more information we cannot make any determination.
It is this final statement, of the lack of a final moral determination, that may cause some to reject a black box approach but again I disagree as I think this is actually the point and why Thompson is wrong with the Innocent Bystander (IB).
Taking Thompson’s aggressors cases, they would fit in well with the previous scenario, if we knew the man who died was the aggressors and actively trying to kill the other, we would assign self-defence. There seems to be a moral right, if we are innocent to defend our life even if that causes the aggressors death. (Ignoring some stances that killing is never morally right, and a physicalist I feel that your life is all you have and you have a right to protect it)
Thompson’s Trolley …show more content…
In this case you have been captured by others and connected via tubes to a person to act as their life support till they heal, without you they will die, but it will kill you in the end though by that time the other will be able to survive. Your only action to survive it to perform an action (Disconnection) that will result in the other person dying. Her argument it that another person does not have the right to cause your death to allow them to