Self-Defense and Kantian Ethics
This is a research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course DR38405, Worldview and Ethical Theory at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO) on March 11, 2023.
Introduction
In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant attempts to provide a system of ethical thinking meant to help those seeking to live a moralistic life achieve the means to do so. This system utilizes what Kant calls the categorical imperative to determine universal principles that determine right from wrong, which is reflected in his own writing, “there is therefore only a single categorical imperative, and it is this: act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”[1] The issue with Kant’s ideology is that it fails to take into consideration the vast complexities of determining intent or moral value, which then gives cases like the issue of lethal self-defense need of special consideration.[2] In fact, when considering Kantian ethics and the issue of lethal self-defense, one can only deduce or infer what Kant might have thought about the topic since he, himself did not write extensively on the topic.[3] However, despite Kant’s lack of writing about lethal self-defense, it is the assertion of many ethicists that Kant would allow self-defense, even lethal self-defense to be morally permissible but only if the right conditions were met.
A Kantian Framing of Lethal Self-Defense
Lethal self-defense, which is defined as any action of deadly force needed to defend against what reasonably appears to be a situation in which there is imminent danger towards the one needing defense[4] is a moral conundrum that has been exasperated by the increase of domestic violence, gun violence, and violence in general during the modern era. And, of course, the amount of those claiming self-defense in these sorts of cases has also increased along with the increase of domestic violence, gun violence, and violence in general. In the case of lethal self-defense in the lens of Kantian ethics, the question is not if there is a maxim or categorical imperative that ought to be considered, it is what categorical imperatives ought to be taken into consideration when thinking through the issue at hand. Or in other words, can a Kantian ethicist consistently approve of lethal self-defense while retaining their belief in Kant’s ethics or is there a categorical imperative that prevents lethal self-defense?
A Kantian Justification of Lethal Self-Defense
There are two aspects of Kantian ethics that apply significantly to the issue of lethal self-defense. First, when considering the concept of lethal self-defense, the key issue is intent. Is the defender seeking to harm another individual maliciously or is intentional harm of the other person only the result of a situation in which there are no other options? Kant would argue that if the intent behind the action is from a self-serving reason, then morally, the action is unjustifiable.[5] An example of this would be to desire the death of a person and to utilize an appearance of self-defense as a means to dispose of that person. Because the individual already wanted to harm another maliciously, this would be morally depraved, wrong, and morally indefensible. With this idea in mind, the person protecting himself would need to be abundantly assured of his own motivation before taking the life of another individual and the action to take someone else’s life would purely have to be the result of not having any other options to protect his own life. For example, if the aggressor attacked the defender and absolutely refused to stop and the defender literally had no other options but to defend himself in a lethal manner, then and only then would lethal self-defense be morally defensible and appropriate.
Second, taken in conjunction with the idea of intent, one would then need to consider other categorical imperatives that might be involved in a decision like this. For instance, Kant argues for self-preservation as a duty of a person concerning issues of self-murder.[6] An individual seeking to harm himself ought not because of a duty to both him and others. It could then be inferred that there is a duty of self-preservation when another person seeks to harm the individual. If an aggressor attacked an individual unrighteously, then there is a duty for the individual to protect himself in the name of self-preservation even if the end result is that of death for the aggressor. Essentially this duty of self-preservation negates other categorical imperatives in an instance like this.[7] Or put differently, when a person is presented with a situation in which another individual seeks to do harm to the person, the categorical imperative of self-preservation supersedes the categorical imperative of not taking someone else’s life even if the result is that of death for the aggressor. It could then be assumed that this categorical imperative of preserving life would then be appropriate in a case of protecting the life or lives of an innocent person or people even with the end result being the death of the aggressor.
Conclusion
When considering some of Kant’s writings and the examples of categorical imperatives that he produced, one can confidently assert that lethal self-defense can be morally acceptable but only if the right conditions are met. The defending individual would have to determine moral value based on his own intent. Did the defender act only out of a sense of self-preservation or was there some other malicious intent behind his actions? Only if the defender acted out of a sense of duty concerning his own self-preservation or the preservation of those that are innocent can the defender claim moral rightness in a case of lethal self-defense. All other options must have been exhausted and the individual needs to have killed the aggressor for no other motive than that of the preservation of life—both his own or of others. Of course, because the determination of moral rightness in a situation like this considers intent, the difficulty would then be for the individual to prove that his intent was only that of self-preservation in the taking of someone else’s life during a lethal self-defense case. The surviving defender would need to prove his intent was only that of protecting himself or protecting those that needed protection from the original aggressor.
Ultimately, despite the moral conundrum that lethal self-defense presents, Kantian ethics provides an excellent way of determining moral value in defending oneself. If the intent of the individual defending himself or others is purely that of self-preservation or the preservation of life and all other options had been exhausted, Kant would claim moral rightness in the taking of the aggressor’s life to preserve the defender’s life as well as the lives of others.
[1] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. and ed. Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermans (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 34.
[2] Jochen Bojanowski, “Thinking About Cases: Applying Kant’s Universal Law Formula,” European Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 4 (2018): 1,254.
[3] Hamish Stewart, “The Constitution and the Right of Self-Defense,” University of Toronto Law Journal 61, no. 4 (2011): 902-903.
[4] Crimes and Offenses, Statutes of Pennsylvania, (December 6, 1972) § 505.
[5] Kant, 13.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Nadine Elzein, “Deterrence and Self-Defense,” The Monist, 104, no. 4, (2021): 531.
