Thomson Self Defence Analysis

1650 Words 7 Pages
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 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 case
So as not to extend this discussion to too many pages, I would like to limit the analysis to Thompsons Innocent Bystander (IB) case of a trolley coming towards you, you have a switch that can divert the trolley and save your life. Thompson states that if there is a person on the other track then you are morally wrong to throw the switch. She calls this case one of the “Substitution-of-a-Bystander” classes. But why is it morally wrong?
Removing Bias
First let us set the bounds of our inputs. Many philosophers like to use what I call morally biased words, Thompson in particular inserts “you” or a child into her arguments, in engineering we try to remove bias. So in our case the two people who are involved do not have anything in common to remove ambiguity. That is they are identical in

Related Documents