"I was defending myself" is probably the most common phrase spoken by anyone with a smoking gun in his hand and a dead body in the vicinity.
There is a broad (not universal, very little is universal, but quite broad) consensus that violence, even to the point of fatal violence, can in principle be justified by some version of those words: If, of course, they are supported by the evidence.
So: what is to philosophize about?
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/self-defense-necessity-and-punishment-a-philosophical-analysis/
There is a good deal. Indeed, this is a good illustration of something I have long considered THE DEFINING FEATURE OF PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy is thinking -- about any subject whatever -- that passes the limits that social convention assigns to that about that subject. Social convention (which in turn develops from individual self-preservation instincts) tells us that we should think rigorously about the proper materials to use in the construction of a bridge, for example. So thinking about that, if you are a civil engineer and that is your socially assigned task, is not philosophy. But social convention also tells us that we should "let certain matters go," not question certain platitudes strenuously.
Perhaps for someone for whom it is not "part of the job," thinking about the proper materials for bridge construction IS philosophy. For anybody, including criminal defense lawyers, thinking critically beyond certain platitudes about what we really mean by "self defense" is philosophical.
I recommend that review as an example of this definition.
Comments
Post a Comment