When is "Self-Defense" a deflection from other conversations?

I have heard more than one conversation lately about self-defense, which is natural in the wake of this week's events. While that question is necessary in our fallen world, I've seen it misapplied in various ways. So before taking a look at self-defense, the first step is to be sure that "self-defense" is the topic on the table. 

If the question is about the ethics of self-defense, that question is specifically about defending the self: the one person asking the question. If the person being attacked is responsible for the defense of others, it is no longer a question of self-defense and the person does not have the latitude to decide on personal preference alone. For anyone in a responsible position, there is a duty to protect those under our care. 

Again, if the question is about the ethics of self-defense, that question is about defending from an attack. It does not cover a "pre-emptive strike", something that comes up more often in international conflicts. The question of self-defense does cover the question of being the initiator. This is not to comment on whether it is ever justified to strike first, but to state plainly that striking first is not a question of self-defense. 

A second moral conundrum

This post responds to a comment from the comments section of the previous post. I thought it deserved a better answer than fit into the comment box. 

There's some similarity between the new conundrum and the previous post's conundrum, "Suppose you have to steal a million dollars to save a life," which seems custom-made to argue from "there are situations where different moral rules are in conflict" to "there is no real right or wrong", and has the options unrealistically limited. If that ever happened in real life, there would be an option to give the money back with interest, plus record the blackmail to show to the police. But that conundrum is artificially gamed to take real-life options off the table. 

The new scenario has a few things in common with that, but at least it's closer to real life. The comment runs: 

Thank you for this post. I'd be happy if you helped me with the following:

A follower of Christ while running away from a war-torn country meets members of a militia who are out to kill religious people and is asked whether he's a Christian. If the militia stay true to their words and kill all who acknowledge religious faith but allow those who deny it to live, should the right response from the Christian after considering the principle you've described be "yes" or "no"?

To the commenter: I'm not sure of your personal backstory so I want to mention: there's no level of "principle" that creates an *obligation* to allow yourself to be killed. That is: in general it is morally required to look for ways to preserve life, while knowingly allowing yourself to be killed is only *acceptable* if better options have been exhausted. ("Heroic sacrifice" scenarios exist, but that's not our scenario here.) When St Paul first faced the option of being killed for his faith, he ran away. (If anyone is not familiar with that, see Acts 9:23-25 and again 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.) Even though St Paul did eventually die for his faith, there were alternatives that first time -- not presented in the conundrum that he was placed in but created by the motivation to preserve life, which is a positive good in general circumstances. 

The commenter mentions considering the principle I've described: the good that's of higher importance or value takes precedence. Notice that everyone does that, regardless which choice they make: If the person values their life over their faith then they will act to make sure they live. Or if the person values their faith over their life then they *might* not act to preserve their life, but they also might go off-script like Paul going over the city wall in a basket, and not play by the script of wannabe murderers. When there are two good things in conflict, we look for ways to preserve both, even if we have to proactively create new alternatives. 

Whenever this kind of thing happens in real life, one factor that comes into play is human weakness. A human being might wish for the courage to stick by their faith but just not have it when the price tag is dying on the spot. Some might also weigh how it would affect their families. The early church had plenty of experience with that. There were people who died for thought-crimes/group membership in various persecutions. But the early church acknowledged the reality that there were people whose courage failed even if their faith was still there, and they would (eventually) forgive people whose nerve failed them when they had the ancient-world equivalent of a gun to their heads. St Peter springs to mind in this connection, who denied knowing Jesus on the night of Jesus' arrest and trial. 

Speaking of artificially limited options, the options would not be limited to answering with the single word "yes" or "no" except to the unimaginative. If we've exhausted our options, and if (as a Christian) the person plans to give an answer that is essentially "yes", they might want to make it count for something rather than simply playing the villains' game. St Paul at his trial said something to the effect, "It is for my faith in the resurrection that I'm on trial." Even on his way out of this world, he was looking to bring that hope to other people around him. Jesus set the example there with some choice answers at his own trial, including "You would have no power over me unless it were given to you from above," "My kingdom is not of this world," "Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to me," and "You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." Sure, those words provide guidance for people wanting to understand his mindset at the moment. But those words also had a way of making the opposition see what they were doing in a new light. Which is the scenic tour of saying: The canned answers of "yes" and "no" are for those too unnerved to think on their feet. Lots of people in that situation find if they're going all the way, they're going to do it with a bang not a whimper. If I were the person in the hypothetical scenario and couldn't find a way to preserve my life, I'd hope to give a "yes" that moved the needle, maybe like: "If by Christian you mean someone who joins God in loving the world, then yes." I'd just hope I could string that many words together if I had that much adrenaline going, and could hope to manage that short version or better. 

Either way they answered in that scenario, they may have missed one of their moral obligations: to be more proactive in stopping people who go around killing others. You mentioned there's a war going so they might be outside any territory where they were a participant in the culture. But if they were still on home turf, regardless of whether the person answered "Yes" or "No", there is some chance they've dropped the ball previously by letting things get to that point. 

A moral conundrum, and Jesus' answer

I recently came across an old post at a skeptic's blog discussing a moral conundrum. There are layers of conversation in that post, which in itself was a response to this very brief hypothetical in moral philosophy, which runs (with one correction to the text): 

Here is an interesting ethical question. Suppose Smith knows for sure that if he steals $1.000,000, Jones will not murder Williams. But if he does not steal $1,000,000, then Jones will murder Williams. If he steals, of course he's a thief, but if he doesn't steal, does that mean he's an accessory before the fact to murder? See what trouble you get into when you ask questions like this to a philosopher?

The conundrum is too far-fetched to be interesting as more than an armchair exercise, but for those interested in armchair exercises, there it is. To me, the more interesting comment is the skeptic's follow-up: 

Why is it a dilemma?  Because to most religious believers, there is apparently no "correct" answer.  Either choice is wrong.  But that simply illustrates a big problem with religious ethical systems in general: they don't work in real life.  The believer sees moral values as being concrete and absolute.  Murder is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  Period.  In this situation, you'd be wrong, no matter which choice you make.  Under Divine Command Theory, God dictates whether things are right or wrong, but since moral values are absolute, there seems to be no wiggle room.  There is no right thing to do.  In deontological ethics, it is one's duty to follow the rules (as set out by God), but the rules say we shouldn't make either of these choices.  This is indeed a conundrum for the religious believer.  And let me add here that this particular scenario might never occur in real life, but there are many situations where one is faced with a choice between two things that are both considered to be wrong.  In fact, it happens all the time.

The part that troubles me is that there is so clearly a way to resolve it within Christianity (and within Judaism), but this seems relatively unknown in modern discussions. It is covered explicitly in the Bible. It is something that Jesus discussed and the religious philosophers and moralists studied intently. The fact that it could get into a modern discussion as an unexpected twist or unsolvable problem, that is the baffling part. 

Here is a recorded example of Jesus addressing the exact situation where two paths for action are each against a different moral law, and how that is resolved: the greater law is kept and the person is blameless with regards to the lesser law. Let's look at Jesus' comments first, and then some more follow-up: 

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say to you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (Matthew 12:5-6)

Again as part of the same train of thought, later in the same chapter: 

And he said to them, "What man shall there be among you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the sabbath day, will not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath days." (Matthew 12:11-12; same or similar conversation also recorded in Luke 14)

While Jesus teaches that the principle of greater good is in effect, he is hardly breaking new ground here. It's the driving force behind the question of which law is the greatest, since the greater law is the one that takes precedence in case of conflict. Discussions of "Which is the greatest commandment?" are recorded in three of the gospels (see Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27). For those who followed the ethical and philosophical discussions of the day, this was not about which commandments have bragging rights, but about which ones could not be transgressed, which took precedence in case of conflict. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart (etc)" takes the top priority, and "love your neighbor as yourself" takes the next, according to Jesus. 

These are not just philosophers' questions like the murderer-and-thief puzzle. This is the guarantee that conundrums can be resolved without blame, when the lesser commandment yields to the greater. It also upholds the desirability of reconciliation even in cases when there is blame: love is generally the greater law than the one transgressed. 

Farewell to Joseph Hinman

It is with sadness and regret that I pass along news that my blog-brother Joseph Hinman (aka Metacrock) has passed away. He was not only one of the founding members of the Christian CADRE, but the unifier, the recruiter, the one who saw the potential for what we could be and brought us together. The CADRE was originally a group of Christians posting on religious-and-atheist discussion boards, sharing camaraderie and tips for working to spread faith on some boards that had been, previously, dominated by New Atheists (plus on some boards, one intensely polemical anti-Christian Jewish fellow). This was back in the days when major magazines had staff writers who prided themselves on increasing the intensity of their attacks on Christianity with each passing year, and major movie studios would coordinate anti-Christian pieces for public release to coincide with Christmas or the Resurrection. 

The CADRE formed late in the 1990's, seems like it was around 1998 or 1999. Though I left the CADRE back in 2005, I remember the CADRE days fondly as a formative time for both my ability to communicate my faith and my proficiency in addressing questions -- even trick questions / loaded questions -- in ways that could communicate God's grace. The CADRE'S work on message boards did see several active mockers come to faith, causing some shockwaves on those boards, and Joe was the one who organized and unified the CADRE. 

Not only was he dyslexic, but he had struggled for many years with poor health in his adult life, and had survived his twin brother by a number of years. Despite those challenges he ran several websites, published 2 books, and was continually looking for fresh ways to explain to scientific skeptics how the facts as he saw them did provide a rational warrant for belief. 

Joe, thank you for the friendship over the years, and for the joy and fellowship of working with you side-by-side for many years. I remember when your father and my father died within a few days of each other, and we shared a moment that they were meeting each other on the other side. Tell them Hi for me, and save me a seat! 

News was received through BK, another of the original CADRE members, via a post at the CADRE website. 

Christianity in Tolkien: Our fight is not against flesh and blood

In Lord of the Rings, there is a good deal of fighting with battles and armies. Still, the villain of the piece is not physical. The evil of Sauron is physically insubstantial, seen as a great eye wreathed in flame. Sauron dominates his subjects through fear, through manipulation, through temptation, through deceit. The greatest danger from Sauron comes not directly from him, but from those who willingly go along with his agenda to dominate, in the hopes of sharing the spoils or at least being on the winning side. 

Evil can be dangerous and destructive. But I am not aware of any naturally-occurring physical thing that is inherently evil, or where we can point to identify the source of evil. If evil had that kind of physical existence, we could destroy it by physical means. 

So Tolkien portrays a world in which the physical battles must be fought to protect the homes and lives of the free people, but the physical battles will never be fully successful so long as evil remains to go on recruiting and corrupting. The real battle is not against flesh and blood. 

Christianity in Tolkien: The risk of corruption and the hope of redemption

One spiritual insight developed by Tolkien is that everyone is corruptible. In the Lord Of The Rings books, we see the major characters each take their turns interacting with the One Ring, all tempted by it. The wisest of them know that they are corruptible and keep their distance from it. Some of them even get a glimpse of what they might become if they pursue that kind of power. 

Tolkien spends some time developing the theme that anyone could be corrupted. Saruman, former leader of the wizards, betrays Gandalf and joins forces with Sauron. And again Boromir, representative of the strongest kingdom in the alliance of the free lands, is the one who turns on Frodo. Those who trust to their own wisdom and strength have underestimated their opponent. Finally, even long-resilient Frodo falters in his battle with such temptation, being saved not by his exhausted strength but by the result of an earlier moment of compassion. 

By the same token, Tolkien portrays everyone as redeemable, or at least as having moments when they can be reached. Frodo refuses to break ties with Smeagol / Gollum not because of a misplaced trust, but because of the growing realization they are in the same predicament. 

It is easy to let ourselves imagine that we cannot be corrupted (or our heroes cannot be corrupted), or to imagine that anyone who missteps is a villain. In Tolkien's insight, the path forward is humility combined with hope and friendship. 

The underrated deadly sin

The list of "7 deadly sins" -- and the opposite list of divine virtues -- has developed over time. If "Faith, hope, and love" are the theological virtues, then I'd suggest the deadly sins that oppose them are cynicism, despair, and disdain (though some would say greed as the final opposite, if love were translated as charity, and I am an outlier in identifying the opposite of faith as cynicism). Where humility is recognized as a cardinal virtue, pride (arrogance) is its matching deadly sin. Wrath and patience, laziness and diligence are generally recognized as matched pairs of vice and virtue. Lust and chastity are still recognized as a similar pair by the godly. But we have nearly forgotten about gluttony and self-control. 

It's an understatement to say that our culture considers gluttony to be less serious. The culture distrusts self-control itself on the basic level of whether it is good. There is a message running through society that self-control is repressive, stifling, or dishonest. To break our self-control is the general goal of advertising. "Binge-watch" is part of the culture and language. 

In my years in 12-step fellowships, I've met "multiple winners" (people who are in multiple 12-step programs) who have variously lost control of their lives to more than just the usual suspects of alcohol and drugs. I've met people who have lost control of their lives to food, gambling, video games, and shopping. "Their god is their stomach" says Scripture (Philippians 3:19), and that's disturbingly accurate at times. And it's not by accident that part of regaining control of life, in those fellowships, is transferring the role of god to either God or a higher power of personal understanding. Having a connection to God is vital to stopping the idolatry of self that eventually leads to slavery to some appetite or other. The thing about self-control is this: If we aren't controlling ourselves, who is? So today I'd like to place a marker that this is a virtue worth reclaiming, and a value worth having.