INTRODUCTION
The legal system in our country has a self-defence doctrine that gives people the option of taking someone else’s life to protect their own. However, there has been much discussion over the moral and ethical implications of justifiable murder, which is the legal designation for killing someone in order to protect oneself.
Based on the fundamental principle that every individual has a right to life, or in particular, a right not to be killed, the law permits killing in self-defence. The legislation essentially states that all people have the right to protect themselves from immediate harm, particularly in life-threatening situations.[1] However, certain requirements must be followed for the law to consider the killing justified.
Nonetheless, this legal notion has raised serious ethical concerns. Certain members of society believe that murdering in self-defence is ethically permissible, while others argue that the perpetrator has a right to life as well, and thus killing them cannot be justified morally or ethically. While certain arguments on both sides are valid, a more in-depth examination is required to gain a clear understanding of what self-defensive killing truly entails and why the law allows it. More crucially, this analysis will help us establish whether self-defence killing is ethically moral.
ANALYSIS
LEGAL JUSTIFIABILITY OF KILLING IN SELF-DEFENSE
The IPC provides general exclusions from criminal liability in sections 76 through 106. However, section 99 of the IPC makes it very clear that the right to private defence can only be exercised when there is a reasonable fear of the person’s death or great bodily harm. Sections 96 to 106 outline defences when a person can kill someone in self-defence.[2]
According to Section 100, cases where the right to self-defense includes causing death are:
- An assault that could legitimately give rise to the concern that death would otherwise follow from the attack;
- Any assault that could fairly give rise to the concern that it will otherwise result in great harm;
- Assault committed with the aim to rape;
- A physical attack committed with the purpose of sating an unnatural lust; a physical attack committed with the intent to kidnap or abduct;
- An attack with the goal of holding someone against their will and doing so in a situation where they would fairly suspect they won’t be able to get out by going to the authorities.[3]
The act of killing in self-defence is justified by simple legal logic, which states that every human has the right to life. Therefore, it is acceptable to hurt the assailant in order to defend oneself in situations of immediate danger.[4] Another key justification for this idea is that the defender’s purpose is not to kill the attacker without justification, but rather that the attacker has hostile intentions.
A crucial issue is raised by this scenario: Someone’s right to life will be violated if the attacker kills the defender or the defender kills the attacker out of self-defence. The question of whose right to life is more important in these situations thus arises: the one intending to hurt another without a morally justified intent, or the person who uses fatal force merely to protect their own life?
However, certain parameters must be followed in order to justify killing in self-defence. The assailant must first pose a direct threat to our lives and must have a good chance of succeeding in doing us harm if we don’t take steps to defend ourselves. Second, the only option for self-preservation should be to murder the assailant in order to end the threat. Third, the attacker should have no good reason for what they are doing. So, immediacy, necessity, and proportionality may be summarized into the three fundamental requirements[5].
THEORIES UNDER THE RIGHT TO KILL IN SELF-DEFENCE
- The theory of Right to Life:
The most prevalent is the right-to-life theory, which emphasizes an inherent right to life and an equivalent right not to be deprived of life. From this perspective, I have the ability to use lethal force in self-defence since I have the right to life. When my life is in danger and failing to act to stop my adversary from killing me will result in my own death, I am justified in acting[6]. The fundamental problem in this scenario, however, is determining how the person defending oneself by murdering the assailant avoids breaching the attacker’s right to life [7](or right not to be killed).[8]
- Forcing the Choice Theory by Philip Montague:
According to Philip Montague’s “Forcing the Choice” argument, the legality of one person killing another in self-defence is contingent on whether the assailant is to blame for risking the defender’s life. Montague’s argument, on the other hand, departs from typical fault-based theories by defining justified homicide in self-defence as a life-or-death decision. In layman’s terms, the attacker is effectively forcing the defence to choose between the attacker’s life and their own.[9]
- Hobbesian’s Rights- Based Approach:
According to this view, the principle of self-defence takes precedence over other moral duties. This main focus is on the importance of an individual’s own life and the specific duty they carry in protecting it. This argument significantly modifies the fundamental right to life argument by advancing for an unconditional yet person-centred right to self-defence.
KILLING IN SELF-DEFENSE: ETHICAL AND MORAL GROUNDS
The ethical dimensions of taking someone’s life in self-defence have long been a source of contention, with different viewpoints prevailing. One faction claims that the killing was justifiable because the person killed intended to do the same without any ethically legitimate justification, however, the defender claims that they simply killed to protect their own life, which they think is ethically sound. Another sector of society, on the other hand, recognizes the legality of killing in self-defence but finds it ethically problematic. According to them, such killing is not ethically justifiable because it violates the attacker’s rights.
Although both perspectives contain aspects of the facts and error, determining the ethical rightness or wrongness of such killings remains difficult. The subject of whether it is morally permissible to take someone else’s life in order to save one’s own has elicited conflicting responses over the years. Human life is seen as enormously important from an ethical sense, making the act of murder ethically undesirable. Some say that while killing in self-defence may be permissible in severe cases, it cannot be considered ethically correct in any situation.
It is important to highlight, however, that both legal and ethical frameworks recognize that rights are not absolute and can be waived in extraordinary circumstances. [10]In circumstances where someone is killed to protect one’s own life, proponents frequently argue that while the defender had the right to life, the assailant who was killed also did. Nonetheless, both legal and ethical perspectives recognize that in instances like these, one life takes precedence over the other, and the defender’s right to life trumps that of the attacker. This prioritization is based on the defender’s lack of intent to kill, as contrasted to the attacker’s unethical motives, which prompted the defender to act to protect themselves. As a result, the attacker’s right to life is valued less than the defender’s, and as a result, the attacker’s right is surrendered to save the defender’s life.
Another significant factor in assessing the ethical dimension of such instances is that the defender acted out of need rather than with an ethically wrong aim, which cannot be regarded as morally improper. In contrast, the attacker’s intention had been unethical from the start, making them unsuitable for an ethical defence.
CONCLUSION
The issue of justifiable killing has long been a source of debate among ethical theorists. Although ethics is often viewed as objective and provides obvious differences between good and wrong, intellectuals have frequently given competing ideas and discovered flaws in their arguments, particularly when addressing the subject of self-defence killing.
Nonetheless, the viewpoint with the most support and least inconsistencies is that taking someone’s life in self-defence is ethically justifiable. While there are various justifications for this conclusion, as previously established, the biggest and most important explanation is that the defender never intended to harm the attacker but was forced to act out of necessity.
Author(s) Name: Aanya Jha (Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA)
References:
[1] David Wasserman, ‘Justifying Self-Defence’ (1987) 16 Philosophy & Public Affairs 356
[2] ‘General Exceptions under Law of Crime. Section 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code’ (Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources) <https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2346-general-exceptions-under-law-of-crime-section-76-to-106-of-indian-penal-code.html> accessed 7 October 2023
[3] (Section 100 in the Indian Penal Code – Indian Kanoon) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/714464/> accessed 7 October 2023
[4] Cheyney C. Ryan, ‘Self-Defence, Pacifism and the Possibility of Killing’ (1983) 3 Ethics
[5] Paul H. Robbinson, ‘Causing the Conditions of One’s Own Defence’ (1985) 1 Virginia Law Review 59
[6] G. P. Fletcher, “Right to Life,” (1980) The Monist 63, 135
[7] ‘Rights, Restitution, and Risk’ Harvard University Press (Cambridge Mass, 1986) 33
[8] Christie, Lars, ‘Harming One to Save Another: Liability and Lethal Luck’, 2015 Oslo: University of Oslo
Press.
[9] (The rhetoric of self-defence – Marquette university) <https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1542&context=facpub> accessed 7 October 2023
[10]‘There Are No “absolute” Rights’ (Constitutional Accountability Centre) <https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/there-are-no-absolute-rights/> accessed 11 September 2023
