I think all of the scenarios are good reasons to shoot someone, even fatally. The same thing keeps coming up, YOUR life is in danger. You are not going to know if someone is high or in control of their faculties until it is over. I hope and pray that I never have to face any of these situations, but if the situation would arise I would shoot. If I am going to die either way, I want to go down with a fight. The cops are pretty usless in any of these situations, all they will be able to do in the end is arrange to have the body taken away.
Why is it that those who are pro 2nd amendment are classified as baby killers? Comparing killing a baby and killing an intruder is comparing apples and oranges. Unless our babies are now able to lock and load, and break into someone’s home and threaten their lives, lets not compare self defence to baby killing.
I would prefer not to discuss abortion in this thread, there are already multiple threads about abortion.
I’ll admit this post was partially inspired by my surprise that people don’t think abortion to save the life of the mother is acceptable, because to me it seems like self defense. This makes me curious in general about what kind of thing Catholics consider to be self defense.
I’m not trying to argue for abortion here. It’s really just a curiosity on my part as to whether people think that intent on the part of your attacker is required for you to be able to morally kill him to save yourself.
The sleepwalker, the person being completely controlled by another, and the person whose heart has been hooked up to a machine killing you have no intent. They are a passive party, forced through no intention of their own to kill you.
In those cases, the only way for you to save yourself is to kill them. My question is whether it would be considered self defense
Well, if you define intent as something the body is doing I agree with you.
I thought intent meant consciously intending to kill someone. Simply having your body (without your knowledge) being in the position that threatens someone’s life would not be intent for me in these examples, because the owner of the body did not deliberately put the body there.
But if you want to define intent so that if the body is doing it there is intent, fine. :shrug:
As for the robot, I don’t think intent matters in self defense. I would not attribute intent to anything other than a mind. A sleepwalking body would not have intent as I see it. But I personally think it’s okay to kill/destroy anyone/anything that threatens your life if that’s what you must do to surrive. For me it would all be self defense.
The general criminal law** allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him**.
The key word is Reasonable - it is supported by the malicious “intent” of the attacker. Without A **reasonable ** perceived danger - it’s murder