ROBERT J.R. GRAHAM: Can Killing Ever Be Justified?

Can Killing Be Justified? The Highest Goal of Self-Defense

by: Master “Dutch” Hinkle

With exposure to television, movies, and video games, we have been introduced to many forms of fighting, martial arts, and self-defense – some good examples and some bad. It has been said that by the time a person reaches the age of eighteen, they have witnessed over 20,000 staged and imaginary killings. What is even more shocking is that many of today’s youth believe that a violent and murderous response should be the normal reaction to personal attacks.

Contrary to this belief, there is a higher moral ground, especially in regards to martial arts and particularly to self-defense. I call it the “Highest Goal of Self-Defense”. It consists of four levels, with the highest level being the most ethical. It begins with two individuals approaching each other along the same path.

With the first or lowest level, as they begin to pass, one individual suddenly attacks the other without provocation and kills him. In many cultures, this would not only be called murder but would also be called an outrageously immoral act. The taking of a life for no reason should always be looked down upon with disgust – thus the lowest ethical level of defense.

With the second or next level up, before passing, the first individual provokes the other into attacking him. Upon launching the attack by the provoked individual, the defender retaliates and kills his attacker with great prejudice. Even though the defender is not guilty of physically initiating the attack, he did provoke the attacker into attacking him. Although many cultures look at this as a justified killing, morally it is irreprehensible and wrong. Again, the taking of a life is this circumstance should be looked down upon.

With the third or next level up, as they come near each other, one attacks the other individual without provocation. The defender defends himself with tenacity and kills his attacker without mercy. Even though the defender could have defended himself without killing his attacker, many cultures would call this as justifiable homicide. But the truth is, the person defending from the unprovoked attack acted in an immoral way. Why? The defender could have possibly defended himself by injuring his attacker without killing him, thus saving his life. Remember, the taking of a life cannot be justified when observed from an enlightened point of view.

It should be noted at this point, the end result of all three lower levels of defense resulted in the taking of a life from an individual. All three killings could be been prevented if moral enlightenment was practiced by all.

Finally, the fourth or highest level begins again with the two individuals approaching each other along the same path. Just like the previous level, one individual attacks the other individual without provocation. However, what is different in this example, the defender defends in such a way that the attack is defused and stopped completely, and the attacker is not injured in any way. Surprisingly, the defender also continues on the path uninjured and undeterred. Take note that no one was killed or even seriously injured. Sometimes from the observer’s perspective, the defender moves with such skill and control that it even appeared that there were no perceptible defense techniques implemented at all – the highest form of ethical defense.

In summary, there is a higher moral ground when it comes to martial arts and particularly to self-defense. Death or even serious injury should always be avoided at all cost to stay on that high moral ground. For the Ancients teach us that ALL life is precious and can never be replaced.

Source