Source
r/Catholicism•
Bounds

[Politics Monday] Beyond self-defense, under what circumstances is there a moral imperative to commit violence?

Politics Monday

Some recent news about HK police has left me confused. Although it doesn't impact me personally, I don't know what a conscientious Catholic should do if the state fails to uphold or actively works against justice.

Posted Jul 22, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

120
ludi_literarum•

There is never a moral imperative to commit violence. There are times when it is permitted, but it is never required.

3
[deleted]•

I disagree. There is such a thing as a sin of omission, and one can envision scenarios where - all alternative, non-violent paths exhausted - one would be morally required based on his responsibility to family or others to perform an act of physical violence in their defense. And that to shirk from this moral responsibility toward those in one's care would be a sin of omission.

4
improbablesalad•

I'm pretty sure we're allowed to just take a bullet for someone.

0
[deleted]•

This is simply irrelevant.

2
ludi_literarum•

Nope. You can always refuse to return violence at the cost of one's life, and if you take just war theory seriously the mere fact that your family might be hurt isn't by itself to justify violence. Pacifism isn't morally required but it is morally praiseworthy.

0
[deleted]•

Nope, you are wrong. You may in charity refuse to return violence at the cost of your own life, but this does not address my previous comment in the least. One is duty-bound to protect his own family from an unjust aggressor, and to refrain from acting in defense of dependent children against such an aggressor, as a father with the means to do so, would be a sinful offense against Justice.

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. Generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.

- "Self-Defense." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1912, Vol. 13. Nihil Obstat.

edit: the citation

6
ludi_literarum•

I need a far better citation than that to convince me from authority.

1
BoundsOP•

I appreciate the citation, but I find this passage to be undeveloped at best and incoherent at worst, for a few reasons.

the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion.

This seems arbitrary and incompatible with the responsibility to defend. If Joe says, "tomorrow I'm going to go to John's house to assault his family with a crowbar," when would John be obliged to intervene? Only when Joe actually begins to swing the crowbar? It seems to me that planning an attack is in fact a beginning of the act, and that if John is justified in employing violence to stop the swing of Joe's arm, he would be justified in employing violence against Joe while the man is asleep in bed.

It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose.

Continuing with our previous example, suppose John successfully disarms Joe while inflicting a minimum of injury. How is John supposed to determine if Joe's purpose has been defeated? Is Joe retreating because he has seen the error of his ways, or to look for another weapon? This seems to be an impossible standard to satisfy, absent the ability to read minds. It also raises the ugly question of pre-emptive violence. What if an attacker could be deterred through violence against his property?

and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community.

This too strikes me as arbitrary. What constitutes a serious loss? Why only defend those people? When asked, "who is my neighbor," Christ didn't say "those whose deaths would be a serious loss to your community."

0
pomen123•

How about the situation when someone is required by law, promise, work obigations, etc. to use violence? For example, a policeman. It seems to me that in such case the person in question would be morally obliged to use it.

2
[deleted]•

Absolutely, there are cases where a policeman would be morally obliged to use force, and to refrain from doing so in cases where one is fully able, would be a sin of omission.

1
ludi_literarum•

That's a special duty he took on, and at the peril of his soul. There's no natural duty to be violent.

1
BoundsOP•

Ok, cool. I was hoping that was the case.

1
ludi_literarum•

That's the case even in self-defense. You can always choose not to shed blood, and it is morally praiseworthy to do so.

3
[deleted]•

That is the wrong answer. See further below.

2
Lethalmouse1•

It also goes to the purpose.

Shooting someone is not done with the intent to kill, even if it essentially is. It is done with the intent to stop the action.

So, the same would apply to whatever.

You can't say "Oh yeah I can go kill folks" so much as "it is moral to stop this thing even if it happens to kill folks."

Then you have Just War situation concerns.

1
PhilosofizeThis•

Beyond self defense?

Maybe in extreme cases of revolution, but a better theologian than me would have to flesh that out.

Violence as a whole is pretty limited tbh.

1
[deleted]•

Honestly, not much. Otherwise you basically just become a murderer even if you murder someone terrible. I think unless it’s your last opinion, you shouldn’t do it.

1