|
Objection 1: It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in
self-defense. For Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii):
"I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be
killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so
that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do
so, provided it be in keeping with one's person." Now he who kills
a man in self-defense, kills him lest he be killed by him. Therefore
this would seem to be unlawful.
Objection 2: Further, he says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "How
are they free from sin in sight of Divine providence, who are guilty
of taking a man's life for the sake of these contemptible things?"
Now among contemptible things he reckons "those which men may forfeit
unwillingly," as appears from the context (De Lib. Arb. i,
5): and the chief of these is the life of the body. Therefore it is
unlawful for any man to take another's life for the sake of the life of
his own body.
Objection 3: Further, Pope Nicolas [Nicolas I, Dist. 1,
can. De his clericis] says in the Decretals: "Concerning the
clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have
killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by
repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher
degree; know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man
under any circumstances whatever." Now clerics and laymen are alike
bound to observe the moral precepts. Therefore neither is it lawful
for laymen to kill anyone in self-defense.
Objection 4: Further, murder is a more grievous sin than
fornication or adultery. Now nobody may lawfully commit simple
fornication or adultery or any other mortal sin in order to save his own
life; since the spiritual life is to be preferred to the life of the
body. Therefore no man may lawfully take another's life in
self-defense in order to save his own life.
Objection 5: Further, if the tree be evil, so is the fruit,
according to Mt. 7:17. Now self-defense itself seems to be
unlawful, according to Rm. 12:19: "Not defending yourselves,
my dearly beloved." Therefore its result, which is the slaying of a
man, is also unlawful.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:2): "If a thief be
found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to
die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much
more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither
is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own
life.
I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only
one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention.
Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and
not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental
as explained above (Question 43, Article 3; FS, Question
12, Article 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have
two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the
slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention
is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural
to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And
yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered
unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man,
in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be
unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be
lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De
Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by
force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless
defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act
of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man,
since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of
another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for
the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above
(Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in
self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while
intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public
good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the
minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin
if they be moved by private animosity.
Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted from Augustine refer to the
case when one man intends to kill another to save himself from death.
The passage quoted in the Second Objection is to be understood in the
same sense. Hence he says pointedly, "for the sake of these
things," whereby he indicates the intention. This suffices for the
Reply to the Second Objection.
Reply to Objection 3: Irregularity results from the act though
sinless of taking a man's life, as appears in the case of a judge who
justly condemns a man to death. For this reason a cleric, though he
kill a man in self-defense, is irregular, albeit he intends not to
kill him, but to defend himself.
Reply to Objection 4: The act of fornication or adultery is not
necessarily directed to the preservation of one's own life, as is the
act whence sometimes results the taking of a man's life.
Reply to Objection 5: The defense forbidden in this passage is that
which comes from revengeful spite. Hence a gloss says: "Not
defending yourselves---that is, not striking your enemy back."
|
|