The pre-emptive strike

Here's a nice controversial topic that comes up again and again. When people talk about self-defense, they usually mean that the bad guy strikes and they defend themselves. Then, inevitably, the question comes up -- "when is it okay to strike first?"

The short answer is, not often. :)

Our first pledge goes
"I come to you with only "Karate" - empty hands.
I have no weapons; but should I be forced to
defend myself, my principles or my honor;
should it be a matter of life or death,
of right or wrong; then here are my weapons -
"Karate" - my empty hands."

That opens up some ideas to mull over, and suggests that self-defense is justified in a few ways, not just by the incoming punch.

Looking strictly at moral issues (as opposed to legal restrictions), let's see. This is my opinion. I encourage you each to add your own, or critique mine.

1) Most think violence is okay if you are working as an agent for a governmental body empowered to send you out with that authority. That means that cops and soldiers can engage in violence, under some specific restrictions. The cynic in me needs to point out that often they can engage in violence outside of those restrictions and still get away with it.

2) the most common justification given in these kind of discussions is emminent threat. You know you are going to get attacked, there's no doubt, and you jump first. It is very important to take some time and think this scenario through, to figure out and discuss some situations and cues that tell you it is definitely go-time. Don't just let this issue go and hope you can figure it out when the need arises. The ethical issues are too important and the situations too subtle and complex to just hope you can figure out the right thing to do when you are in the heat of the moment.

To elaborate, none of us are mind readers. Human motivation is hard to read, and human behavior is hard to predict, especially for criminals, and sociopaths, and desperate people. If we postulate a specific situation where it is clearly go-time, it's fairly easy to poke holes in the scenario, offer reasons why it might not be go-time because the bad guy might choose to back down, etc.

Then comes paralysis of analysis. Don't let all this stop you when you need to act. The goal is to help identify when it is go-time, not talk yourself out of going when you need to. And, you'll never think up every situation, so relying on ethical principles may prove more helpful.

3) Saving someone else. Human life is precious, even if it isn't your own. We can discuss all day on who should be helped and in what situations. This also needs some serious thought, and carries great risk.

One thing I am reminded of is a principle for nations to go to war under just war theory. Nations are justified in going to war if they are attacked, if they are under clear and immenent threat (troops are gathered and ready to roll across the borders), and if their allies are attacked (if we have sworn to defend them in treaty). Nations are only obligated to go to war in defense of allies with whom they have protective treaties. Nations are not obligated to defend themselves, but they may be obligated to defend their friends.

In class, we engage in discussion about the morality of violence and nature of self-defense multiple times each semester. It comes up in the process of teaching techniques, and in the process of talking about the pledge, and specifically when we cover a technique called Sword and Hammer, in which the response is far more vicious than the initial attack we are supposed to be defending against (the bad guy grabs the shoulder from behind and to the side, the defender responds by chopping the bad guy's throat). The tech is a great think piece, just begging a few interesting questions, and provides a platform to discuss those questions. It serves as an example from which we have to find, as a group, either a justification, or resolve that there is no justification. Each time it's brought up, the conversation is a little different from last time, which is fine. The point is to get students to think about, and discuss, the ethical issues in self-defense.

Besides that, the tech teaches some nice physical lessons about striking from point of origin, body fusion, and so forth. :)

-- SGB

P.S. Another way to approach this issue to discuss when being the first to strike is not justified, i.e. ego fights, etc.