Ethics

If you kill someone in self-defence, is that still an immoral act or does it depend on what form of moral philosophy you subscribe to? If an act is justified does that mean it's moral?

Comments

This is an extremely complex set of questions, and really doing it justice is, I'm afraid beyond the scope of this web site. There are many thorny philosophical issues involved in it. But to give a brief answser in the light of these qualifications, I'd say this. Regarding your first question: yes, depending upon what you mean by "moral philosophy and "subscribe." Acts aren't in themselves moral or immoral. Calling them either one involves a judgment on our part, and that judgment is in large measure determined by a set of concepts, ideas, concerns, and feelings that broadly speaking might be called a moral theory. Regarding the second question: yes, depending upon what you mean by "justified." If a set of reasons and statements can be offered that in some sense warrants or licenses or supports us calling an act "moral," then that act is properly called moral. But what gives warrant or license is a very difficult thing to determine. Much of what counts as moral controversy involves figuring out what is to count as "justified" and not justified in this sense, what we are to accept as warranting a judgment of "moral" or "immoral" with regard to an action or institution. Here the question might involve not only whether the situation genuinely was a case or self-defense but also whether or not self-defense always warrants responding with lethal force (for example, are those who face legitimate punishment warranted in defending themselves against the punishment?). Note finally that saying that "If an act is justified, then it's moral" is different from saying, "If an act is moral, then it's justified." The question of justification might not always arise in matters of morality.

Read another response by Peter S. Fosl

Read another response about Ethics