at the blog "front sight" you will find the classic formulation of st. thomas acquinas on when it is permissible to kill another in defense of self, this article published 09.12.2006 at that blog. as reader mark comments, this passage is often quoted in summa theologica, st 2-2, q. 64, a. 7.
i am not a catholic theologian, but i think it safe to say that the doctrine retains vigor and vitality in theological circles to this day, with, i am certain, much circumstantial embellishment: a lot of situations have flowed under the bridge in the years since aquinas put quill to paper.
i did practice law, in the main criminal law, for about 25 years and i can tell you with certainty that such formulation is essentially the formulation for justifiable homicide in self defense to this day in the english speaking world, e.g., where the common law is practiced. and, i would expect that almost all systems of civil law would not deviate materially from the aquinas formulation.
here, as set forth at "front sight," is what st. thomas aquinas had to say on the matter:
“without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death… in fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim.” [there are three conditions under which legitimate self-defense must lie:] “that he who is the target of the force is an aggressor and an unjust aggressor… that the object of the defense is an important good, such as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods… [and] that defensive violence is proportionate to aggression.” [under these conditions,] “one is also allowed [not required] to kill other people’s unjust aggressor.”
thomas aquinas, dizionario ecclesiastico (”ecclesiastic dictionary”, utet, 1959)"
the summa theologica sectionsfrom which the aquinas formulation is taken illustrate that self defense was not an easy topic for theologians, and that aquinas did not resolute in this formulation after cursory consideration.
aquinas considered homicide from many different perspectives and in the main proscribed the killing of another human, even, as to priests and clerics, forbidding the taking of the life sinners, under any circumstance. st. 2-2, q. 64, a. 4.
aquinas had, however, a nimble intellect and he came up with a doctrine that recognized that an act may have "split intentions," and that in the commission of an act if one intention were to the good while other unintended consequences were not good, still in all, the one good intention of such an act might serve to render it just and moral. aquinas states the matter as follows:
"i answer that, nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. and yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [cap. significasti, de homicid. volunt. vel casual.], ... ." summa theologica, 2-2, q. 64, a. 7.
this, of a necessity, is said with something of a "stage wink" by aquinas, as surely in most self defense situations, and as surely recognized by aquinas, where one is driven to take the life of his aggressor there is most assuredly a very strong motivation component to "... slay the aggressor." and, just maybe to kick him in the ribs as he bleeds to death, just for good measure.
yet, it is of such importance that one be recognized in theology as having the right to kill in order to preserve his own life that such intellectual and theological legerdemain be engaged in to justify the slaying of one's aggressor. it is, intellectually, to engage in a bit of a fiction in order to get the right result. and, it is a fiction that has been indulged in for centuries, even though no one is blind to the realities of the psychology of such a moment, as taking the life of one's attacker. it is, however, apparently a "necessary" fiction in the eyes of catholic theologians, and countless western legislators, in order to arrive at a solution with comports with the human condition, and the human psyche and spirit.
this level of theological analysis makes it permissible for one to kill in order to prevent being killed. it is not unreasonable to regard this as the "bedrock" position of western thought, both philosophical and theological.
the next installment in this series will be devoted to an examination of when a person may be said to have a duty to resist aggression as it is imposed upon him.
john jay @ 07.06.2010
p.s. summary of previous links/posts on this theme may be found here.
Comments