Is It Impermissible to Kill an Innocent Threat in Self-Defense

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Is Killing of an Innocent Permissible: A Philosophical Review
Introduction
The moral and philosophical debate over the justification of killing an innocent threat in self-defense has been a prominent issue of political philosophy and sociology, especially in the modern world, as it aims to provide a reasonable and justifiable answer to killing people by law enforcement agencies and citizens in self-defense. Unlike the anticipated stance, several philosophical propositions subscribe to the view that killing an innocent threat is justifiable if the threat poses an impending danger to someone’s life (Otsuka 74). Even when the person to kill does not have an immoral intention to threaten a person, this school of thought allows a person to kill him if the person perceives an impending threat from this morally innocent person (Ford 2). Hence, this philosophical proposition justifies killing a morally innocent bystander as it supports a person’s right to kill in self-defense.
On the contrary, I argue that this seemingly appropriate philosophical proposition entails several moral and philosophical flaws, and for the same reason, it is liable to be rejected based on better and more rational philosophical arguments. One of the loopholes in this argument that I propose is that it uses the proposition “choosing a lesser evil” philosophy to kill a morally innocent threat; however, this proposition is not justifiable as a defender is liable to respect a person’s human right to living a secured life (McMahan (a) 386).
Moreover, a person does not deserve to be killed if he or she is morally innocent and has no control over the circumstances, which shows them an impending lethal threat (Otsuka 74). Hence, based on these rational arguments, one may defend the proposition that killing a morally innocent individual is reciprocal to killing an innocent bystander. For the same reason, it is not morally or even legally permissible.
Arguments Justifying the Killing of a Morally Innocent Bystander
One of the arguments that proponents of killing self-defense promote is centered on the lack or presence of human rights to live. In this regard, this argument proposes that if a person X intends some actions that may violate a defender’s right to live, then the X loses his right to live, and the defender is permitted to kill this threat (Doggett 1). Furthermore, this view supposes that even if someone poses a threat but does not materialize it, that person violates universal rights and deserves to be killed even if the person is not morally responsible for that threat (Doggett 2). Hence, this aspect of the argument justifies killing a morally innocent threat using the condition that deprives a person of his human rights.
The argument in favor of permitting killing a morally innocent bystander further posits that killing an innocent bystander is not a reciprocal act to killing a morally innocent threat. To illustrate, suppose during a tornado, a projectile object is hurled toward a person, and the only way for a person to save his life is to use a sturdy bystander as a shield (Doggett 2). In this scenario, killing a bystander is not reciprocal to k...