Skip to main content

A Philosopher Discusses the Idea of Self Defense


 "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. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more