CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
9
Yes No
Debate Score:20
Arguments:19
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (11)
 
 No (8)

Debate Creator

Nercos(6) pic



Is it morally ok for victims of domestic violence to use deadly force?

Is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence? As a note, this discusses ANY culture anywhere, not a single country or society.

Yes

Side Score: 11
VS.

No

Side Score: 9
1 point

I think the only situations that warrant the taking of a human life is when someone is in the process of violating someone else's right to their life or body. So if an attack is in progress, a victim is justified in defending themselves. It would be preferable to incapacitate rather than kill but that's not always a possibility.

If it's an abusive situation but the victim isn't currently in physical danger, protection should (ideally) come in the form of outside intervention. I know resources for victims are not always easily available and it may be difficult for them to find effective support, but I'd rather see that get fixed over more victims killing their abusers.

Side: yes
kirsty125(88) Disputed
1 point

It is repeated so they should have left befor hand. I can find three resorces leaving my naborhood. This topic also states if it is morally permissible. In some countries Domestic Violence against women is morally permissible so fighting back wouldnt be.

Side: No
zombee(1026) Disputed
1 point

Are you saying that someone who experiences repeated abuse is at fault for staying where they are?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying you found three resources leaving your neighborhood. If you mean there are three nearby services providing help for people in abusive situations, that's great but unless you've used them to escape someone who was trying to beat or murder you, you can't speak to their effectiveness. Victims are still terrorized and killed by abusers they have tried to escape.

Are you asking people to tell you what they think about the morality of abuse and defense, or asking people to tell you if abuse is sanctioned in other countries? If the former, your last statement is pointless. If the latter, use Google.

Side: yes
1 point

The description states repeated victims, and assuming it's the same person. I say yes if it is during the act.

How is the individual to know their spouse is not going to kill them that time? I'm sure there are cases that have been dismissed for just that reason, self-defense.

That said why any woman stays with a guy who does this is beyond comprehension. And they almost always go back like he's going to change or something.

At some point she's partly to blame for her situation, at least in any western civilization where she has every opportunity in the world to leave him.

But fuck it, kill the douche.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes. As plainly as I can put it, yes. When someone is being beaten in an alley do they not have the right to exercise self-defence, which in some case includes taking the life of their attacker? Everyone seems to keep stating that if the violence is recurring than the woman should have left the house. I disagree with this for two reasons. One: Domestic abuse victims are not always women. The same as not all rape victims are women. Two: Sometimes these victims have literally no where else to go but onto the streets and if I where them I would take abuse over subjecting myself to the voilent dangers of the streets. Both those scenarios are awful and I don't believe anyone should be subject to them but the abuse is the lesser of two evils until the victim has somewhere to go. But don't let my previous statements mislead you, I do believe in alternatives to deadly force such as shelters for victims of abuse of the police but when someone is backed into a corner and fearing for their life because the person opposite them is beating them then I believe it is morally right for them to use deadly force to save themselves.

Side: yes
1 point

IT is ONLY ever acceptable for a victim of domestic violence to believe they have no other choice but to defend themselves in such a way. If they genuinely believe that the alleged abuser is going to cause great harm or they believe they're going to be harmed in such a way that they will die from wounds inflicted or be killed by this person, only then, is this ever acceptable and it can only be tried under 2nd Degree Murder, if they aren't already covered by the Battered Women's Defense (given they are Canadian and fall under Canadian jurisdiction).

Side: yes
1 point

While many take the some what referred to as good side where the victim should use deadly force I believe different. According to the US Armed Forces, deadly force is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death. Domestic violence is a pattern of interaction that includes the use of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, isolation, and/or emotional, economic, or sexual abuse by one intimate partner to maintain power and control over the other intimate partner. Alternatives exist, therefore the victim would be violating the respect of human life to kill when alternatives exist. One alternative is to leave the attacker. Another is to use the law to your advantage. The police force exists to protect human life. This is the purpose of most laws, just as it is the purpose of domestic violence being illegal, as Carolyn Hoyle and Andrew Sanders explain, "another purpose is to enable the state to intervene, usually by prosecuting, in order to exact retribution, produce specific and, perhaps, 'treat' the offender, thereby reducing further offending in a more constructive way. Murder can never be morally permissible. It can be excused, but not justified. There is an extreme difference. If we ever allow murder to be morally permissible, we violate the most basic right, the right to life. The respect of human life achieves morality, while using deadly, deliberate force against repeated domestic violence does not. This cannot be morally permissible under any circumstances because the victim would never be killed and be able to do the same to the aggressor. Options which harm people become morally impermissible when less harmful options exist. Victims of repeated domestic violence can seek recourse to the legal system or escape through the use of non-deadly force. Debilitating non-deadly force can be used as an effective method for the victim to incapacitate the attacker and escape to seek the help of authorities. When a victim uses deadly force their action is excusable however not justified because to deem something justified is to say that it is the fair or just thing to do. However taking the law into your own hand and personal killing an abuser is never the just or fair thing to do. Now imagine your in that position and you kill the abuser, there is no proof however that you were getting domestic violence upon you. You get charged with man slatter and get 25 to life time in federal prison. Therefore that could have been the abuser not you. It is very dangerous as well, for it runs into the law. In many states, it is illegal to kill people even if they have abused you. Your saying you want to stop abuse but you’re just turning around and killing them which is considered abuse so if you say its okay to kill them you’re a hypocrite. Self defense is permissible but killing them is to extreme. Our moral system exists because of the rights claims we make against each other. According to John Locke, the social contract develops as a result of people wanting to coexist with one another and therefore agreeing individually that they will not violate rights in exchange for not having their own rights violated. Therefore, the only appropriate retribution is that which is equivalent to the rights which have been violated to begin with. Taking life is not proportional to the rights violation which occurs as a result of repeated domestic violence. Though the victim may be robbed of liberty and happiness, they still have the opportunity to regain it because they are alive. Life provides the opportunity to exercise all other rights, and therefore, it is more valuable than all other rights. A victim’s use of deadly force would therefore be disproportionate and morally impermissible. In short violence is never the anwser :) Thank you.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is actuly the new debate topic. lol :) im writing cases right now ill put serious answers up once I finnish :).

Side: No
1 point

If violence begets violence, it is only a matter of time before civilized society distills down to anarchy. I am one of the belief that there are almost always non-violent routes one can take. In this case it would be take your essential possessions (and kids) and leave him/her.

Side: No
kirsty125(88) Disputed
1 point

Contention 1: Increase of Abuse

Sub Point A: Domestic Violence Incresses

Domestic Vilonce Services says "The pattern, or cycle is repeated, and the level of violence increases. The abuse gets worse. During every stage in the cycle, the abuser is fully in control of themselves and is working to control and further weaken the victim." This shows that not only dose the abuse get worse but the abuser knows what they are doing and can control every asspect.It would only be moral for the victam to be able to fight back with the same force if they fell that there life is in danger. This would make it infact self defence witch is moral and just not premeditated murder which would be consididered inmoral.

Sub Point B: Situations

There are sistuations whrere a victum cant just get up and leave. If someone has been told for long periods of time there they are worthless then they will belive it and Domestic violence can start with just that a few harsh words. That will destory the victums confidence and belive they cant leave. If it gets worse and there is a child presend then it is the perents obligation to make sure that child is safe so the perente cant just get up and leave there abusive partner. Steven D stewert the Clark Country prosactuing attourny stated "Battered women lose their jobs because of absenteeism due to illnes s as a result of the violence." he also stated "First, the batterer isolates them from family and friends. Battered women then become embarrassed by the abuse inflicted upon them and withdraw from support persons to avoid embarrassment." this leaves women with money and no where to go. they are alone and dont fell like thre is anywhere they can get help. Making moral for them to fight back in defense if there is nothing eles to do

the question was is it morally and moral changes with each person so you cant answer the case in a way without having an attack

Side: No
Apollo(1608) Disputed
1 point

Your whole argument is contingent upon the fact that the woman is choosing to stay. No one is forcing her to stay. If she is indeed staying, then logically, she thinks that the home of the abuser is a better place to stay than elsewhere.

This means one of two things:

1) It is actually better for her to stay at home. This means there is no domestic violence occurring.

2) There is domestic violence occurring. This means elsewhere is better than with the abuser

SO assuming scenario #2, she can either leave or stay. A woman would only stay if she wishes harm t herself and her children (not likely). Or has a mental deficiency, in which case she should not a) be able to kill anyone or have access to a weapon b) have to raise a child on her own.

Side: No
kirsty125(88) Disputed
1 point

a goverment creates anarcy its contradictury within itself

Side: yes
Apollo(1608) Disputed
1 point

Who said the government was creating it? If people do whatever their morals, however messed up and wrong, deem fit, you have anarchy.

Side: No