Is the subject to be discussed about the natural right of the individual to defend his own life, or is it about the same right applied to nations or to society? If the latter, can natural law be applied to any entity beyond the individual?

How do we define, in either an individual or collective case, what we want to mean by "reasonably certain"? What are the tests before the event that would determine pre-emptive action, and what would be the consequences if they were not actually met?

Depends on the details of the case. In some cases, I would consider it to be completely unethical, in others; quite warranted - just too many variables to answer in a strictly general-sense.

I wonder why you see a difference between group and individual rights. Please explain. I believe group rights represent nothing more than a compliation of individual rights...hence, i believe individual right and group right are synomous. re your concern about the determination of "reasonable certainty" of a need to take defensive action, i believe that determination must be based on the preciption of the person/group threatened. If a gun is heald to your head, you are justified in feeling threatened and morally permited to respond as necessary to eliminate that threat. The consequences are that the person or group which initiated the provocation may suffer the consequense of their provocation. The person/group whos life is actually threatened has the more stringent right, i.e., to defend.

I would have to agree.

Charles, were you thinking of a specific case?

So, if I point a gun at you, you would consider that threat to justify defensive action. However, if, in darkness, i point my finger at you, express an iintent to shoot you and you believe my statement and my gesture represent an actual threat, are you any less justified, eventhough no actual threat existed.

It was not my intention to argue either way, only to suggest some questions that require, at least to my mind, some consideration in the discussion. Obviously, by asking the question about group and individual rights, I am not sure that one is "nothing more" than the other, and I think it important to consider either practically or theoretically how "reasonably certainty" is determined, or who makes that determination.

No. My thought relates to the balance of countervailing rights, those of the person/group threatened and those of the person/group making the threat. My point (if I have one) is that the balance tips in favor of the person threatened and tends towards forfiture of similiar rights by the person/group initiating the threat.

Take a look at the 6 day war and the closing of the Strait of Tiran.

Yes, and what is your conclusion concerning the more stringent right --- those under threat of attack and those making the threat? Please explain/support your position.

As a martial artist of many years (student and instructor) my feelings on this are clear.
Yes. You have a legal right and, I feel, a moral/ethical right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and others.

This right includes the use of a preemptive strike in the face of a possible attack against yourself and another.

However, there are a few caveats. Keep in mind that all of these points, particularly the moral and ethical ones, assume that you are what our society would deem "a decent person" and not a psycho/sociopath.

1) You must be ready to prove, in court, that you were justified in your actions. If you seriously injure or kill the other person you must be resolute in your belief that they intended to do the same to you. Even if the treat was just a finger mimicking a gun, and threats of violence in a dark alley.

2) Your response must match the level of the perceived threat against you. In other words, you cannot break someone's nose because they called you a name and expect to get away with it, legally. Nor can you shoot someone because they punched you in the nose. If someone calls you a name, shoves you, then steps toward you in a hostile manner with their fists clenched, you can reasonably claim "self-defense" if you drop them with a straight punch to the face before they have the chance to throw a punch at you (and in a self-defense situation where physical action is required, a preemptive strike is often the best move. One thing I've learned in my years of study is that action is faster than reaction, and once a punch has been launched at your nose it's very difficult to avoid, even with training, if you're not very, very quick). Once you have neutralized the threat, you must cease your actions, and ideally call for assistance, and begin identifying potentially sympathetic witnesses. Once they are down, and no longer a threat to you or another physically (even if they had attacked you with a weapon), you can't just keep on kicking them in the head. . . which I think should go without saying from both a legal and moral/ethical standpoint.

3) The laws regarding what constitutes self-defense vary by state. Some are fairly lenient. Others are not. California is very strict. States like Utah and Wyoming, not so much. If you are concerned, ask a cop or a public defender. They're usually glad to tell you.

Morally and ethically the question of self-defense (including a preemptive action) can be a bit more slippery. One way you can begin to determine where you stand on this issue is to make a list of everything that you might lose if you are seriously injured or killed in an attack.

If you are injured to the point of being hospitalized and possibly permanently disabled by your attacker, will you be able to continue to provide for yourself? Your family? What if you are killed and you have a spouse and children? Is it not your moral and ethical obligation to consider their plight in your absence? On a more egocentric level, what of your self-esteem? Victims of violent attacks often suffer from feelings of worthlessness, shame, and the lasting effects of depression, particularly in the case of rape (which, and don't kid yourself guys, happens to men as well as women).

You also must decide right now (not at the moment of crisis, it's usually too late then), under what circumstances you would be willing to defend yourself, or others, and how far you would be willing to take it based on those circumstances. You must consider that you may only have three options in the event of either a perceived threat or an actual attack. I have put these in my own order of preference: 1) Walk away. This includes trying to talk your way out of the situation. 2) Defend yourself physically as best you are able to whatever level is needed to neutralize the threat, while accepting that you may still either lose and/or face legal charges. 3) Get hurt or die.

The ideal goal of any violent or potentially violent encounter, I feel, is to walk away with as little damage to yourself or your opponent as possible. Actually, even more ideal would be to practice environment awareness so that one might avoid such situations in the first place.

There is a saying relating to self-defense that goes: "It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." I take some issues with this saying, which I won't go into, but overall I think it is reasonably valid in many circumstances.

But that's just my feelings on the matter. Many will doubtless disagree vehemently, especially with my over-simplification of a matter that has had volumes of books written about it. Also, sorry about so many parentheticals.

Tock
------
p.s., I'd like to thank Tony Blauer (Tony Blauer Tactical Systems) for his various lectures I have listened to which have helped solidify some answers to my own thoughts about self-defense, and whose "list" idea I shamelessly borrowed and use in self-defense classes. I'd also highly recommend Gavin De Becker's brilliant book, "The Gift of Fear" to anyone interested in the study of violent attacks and how to recognize and avoid them.

I'm sorry, I just saw this reply Charles,



Once again, it depends on a lot. If you pointed your finger at me while we're watching a football game and said "I'm gonna shoot you", I'd reply "Oh really?" - then continue trying to flag the waitress down, not giving it another thought.

If we were in the same situation, yet this time you pointed a gun at me and said same, I'd consider the threat more worthy of responding. If I had a weapon, I'd 'preemptively attack' you. [1]

But we can't follow this logic too far. There are far too many situations where details can make all the difference to safely and reasonably assert a generalized conclusion. Nation-states point weapons at each other all the time - everything from ICBMs to slingshots - yet gratefully this hasn't always resulted in the "pointee" overreacting and launching a preemptive attack.

I hate saying this, because it feels like a cop-out, but I'll say it anyway: Its neither always right nor always wrong to preemptively strike. It is; however, *extremely* spurious ground ethically and morally (and yes - reasonably) to preemptively strike at perceived threats. One can only do so justifiably on the most solid ground with the most compelling evidence of that threat coming to fruition.

Haha... I'm not sure I said anything here. Someone take this keyboard away

Cheers!


-----------
[1] Although this type of gesture, with the weapon, could reasonably be called an "attack" itself, by many, I won't go down that road lest our waters become too murky.

Your position strikes me as reasonable, my only issue is the "legal" stuff. Ones obligation for moral action I beleive is, with few (if any) exceptions, above legal constraint/condition.

My opinion is that it is justifiable to strike first under certain conditions. Think of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese where on their way there for one purpose and one purpose only...to destroy a fleet in port.

"One can only do so justifiably on the most solid ground with the most compelling evidence of that threat coming to fruition.

Haha... I'm not sure I said anything here. Someone take this keyboard away"

Keep the keyboard. The justification (as one of you two positions suggest) is in the perception of the person threatened. If the perception represents a fabrication, preemptive response is immoral. The point, in my opinion, is first, the person threatened must feel a real and present threat and the person making the threat must accept responsibility for causing a potential over-reaction from the person/group they have threatened.

Just because perception is - at least in part - a fabrication doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, correct or reasonable. Just because we're subjective, doesn't mean we're always perceiving incorrectly.

But that point aside, I concur with your overall position.

So this issue has been dealt with on an individual level. For the sake of playing devil's advocate I could suggest a more pacifistic view of the issue, but I will refrain.

I will, however, inquire about your feelings on a nations right to pre-emptive measures. Is it as cut and dry as an individual's rights? Or is there a larger picture to consider? Since, after all, we are talking about a lot more lives that hang in the balance. Or should that even matter? Does it matter more, morally/ethically, if the situation involves many lives or just one? And, here's perhaps the tougher question, how do we reconcile when we mess up and act upon incorrect assumptions? Should we attempt to reconcile even? Or are we justified simply by the intension to avoid any and all potential harm to our own? For that matter, are we not obligated to do everything in our power to protect our own, even if it means committing the occasional atrocity in the name of self defense and pre-emptive measures? After all, we all know the power of fear... perhaps it's wise to put a healthy dose of fear into the hearts and minds of our potential enemies. That way our actual enemies will feel it as well.

"I will, however, inquire about your feelings on a nations right to pre-emptive measures. Is it as cut and dry as an individual's rights? Or is there a larger picture to consider? "

I see little difference between the right of one to defend and the right of a group of "ones" to defend.

"And, here's perhaps the tougher question, how do we reconcile when we mess up and act upon incorrect assumptions? Should we attempt to reconcile even? Or are we justified simply by the intension to avoid any and all potential harm to our own?"

I think you are justified in acting as necessary/reasonable to avoid harm, which includes the perception of harm created by one, or more than one, who's action makes the threat beleivable.

"For that matter, are we not obligated to do everything in our power to protect our own, even if it means committing the occasional atrocity in the name of self defense and pre-emptive measures?"

Yes, I believe the obligation to defend represents a moral obligation. The guilt, if any for over-reaction, rests primarily with the one/those who threaten, not the person/people who respond to that threat.

Well, that's a fine sentiment. Let's relate this to a current international dilemma then. The American people believed, or at least they were told by their leaders, that Iraq posed a threat to America. By the logic of your last statement, do we blame Saddam Hussein's regime for the current chaotic and occupied state of affairs in that country? Or, since WMD's were never found, is the Bush administration at all at fault?

Certainly, in the case of Iraq, there is a shared blame...Saddam clearly threatened the US and allied nations with attack and demonstrated by his statements and conduct a willingness to use WMD's. America, however did over react, in hind-sight, if the preemptive attack was not self-defensive in nature.

Regardless, when one points a pistol at you or your ally, you have a moral right/obligation to take the threat seriously. The fact the you later discover the pistol was not loaded, or loaded with less than leathal material, is of no moral consequense. Under these conditions you are morally justified in exercising the minimum force necessary to eliminate the threat.

Further, I think it is wrong to confuse occupation with pre-emptive attack. The occupation of Iraq demonstrates, wrongly in my opinion, a misguided attempt to stabalize a defeated enemy and/or an attempt to prevent another threat to America or it's allies from developing. Any future threat posed by Iraq represents a reasonable possibility, but is not probable, hence, not deserving of occuption for purely pre-emptive reasons.