It is morally permissible for a victim to use lethal force as a response to domestic abuse

=Pro Case= Definitions Moral Permissibility: allowable by morality, but not necessarily a positive moral action Ob. 1: To elucidate this definition I provide the famous pen analysis. If I am holding a pen we would say it is morally permissible to do so, since it doesn’t violate any moral conditions. However, we would not say holding the pen is moral in and of itself. Lethal: deadly; having the conditions necessary for death Ob. 2: Even though lethal force is deadly force, death does not always have to be the end result. For example, shooting someone is lethal force, but being shot does not necessarily entail death, e.g. shooting someone in the foot. Response: a reaction to Ob. 3: Insofar as we know that it’s a response then domestic abuse has occurred. Domestic abuse: as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one or both partners in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, friends or cohabitation Ob. 4: It is important to notice the word pattern in the definition. One case of an altercation does not entail a case of domestic abuse – it must be a pattern or commonplace. Framework A Moral Right of Self-Defense Exists John Locke writes, The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. Thus, there are a few important extrapolations from Locke First, right of self-defense is a natural and moral right which exists to protect th sovereignty of the individual. Second, when one tries to inflict force upon another, he has violated his own rationality and devolves to the level of an animal. Third, a state of war exists between two people when force is inflicted upon another. This point is especially pertinent for the round because war is different than simply a one-time struggle. War permits deliberate and intended use of force. As such, even though the abused is planning out the use of deadly force, it is morally legitimate because the abusers action resembles that of war. C1: The abuser makes the environment inescapable for the abused – circumstantially, killing might be the only way Wright writes, The women and children who are domestically abused by their spouses or parents are among the most marginalized members of American society, trapped in abusive relationships from which they can see no escape. They are often trapped by their abusers, who isolate them from family and friends who might otherwise provide them with assistance and support in leaving. They are frequently trapped by poverty, making retreat from the abusive situation a financial impossibility. And they are virtually always trapped by the unremitting violence, which not only batters them physically but emotionally as well, making leaving the abusive situation a psychologically unrealistic option. Toffel writes, These traditional self-defense requirements are problematic for women. Because society has believed for so long that the proper role for women is to obey their husbands, a woman who kills her husband is often perceived as insane or inherently unreasonable."' Men are generally physically stronger than women, thus women may need to use deadly force rather than equal force to survive an attack."2 Women are also more likely to kill their male abusers when the abusers are off guard, such as when they are asleep, because women are more likely to be killed themselves when their abusers are directly confronting them." 3 Moreover, leaving their abusers may not be a viable option for women whose abusers have stalked them in the past after they tried to leave and/or have threatened to stalk and injure them in the future if they leave. C2: The law is unhelpful Burke writes, Even if someone does call authorities, the police and courts often fail to protect women from abuse. Before mandatory arrest laws, police often refused to arrest a batterer if they did not witness the abuse first hand, even if they arrived at the scene of a reported battering to find a woman covered with blood waiting for them outside. Perhaps as a result of police avoidance of arrests in domestic violence situations, batterers themselves do not perceive any significant risk of arrest for their conduct. Although mandatory arrest statutes increase the rate at which batterers are arrested, they also increase the likelihood that a domestic violence victim will be arrested for using defensive force. An unfortunate consequence is that battered women may be less likely to call the police for help if they fear they will be the partner selected for arrest or that the police, not knowing which partner was at fault, will arrest both parties. Even if a woman manages to leave her husband and secure a restraining order against him, the hurdles to enforcement of the order can be considerable. A battered woman's past attempts to resort to the police, the courts, or other avenues of escape may have failed to protect her from additional and escalating abuse, leaving her with a reasonable belief that she has no safe options. *Unpoportionate response is necessary for self-defense (refuts my opponents' C3) =Con Case= C1: American Roots, UN First, the Decleration of Indepenence was based on the writings and philosophy of Locke. Insofar as that was true, Locke believes that one has a direct right to defend one's self even in the case of preempted defense. Second, TURN: this point collpases the rest of my opponents case. If one cannot infringe on any of the inalienable rights, then self-defense is destroyed, jais would be illigimate (jails violates liberty), etc. There are limits to these rights, esepcially the right of self-defense. Third, the U.S. has no contractual obligation to the UN. Moral responsibility to U.S. citizens first. C2: Alternate Solutions First, cross-apply my Burke evidence - the law fails to protect thse women. Second, cross-apply my Wright analysis - these women are in situtations controlled by the abuser; no other options can break this psychoogical or factual cage. Third, deliberate use force does not mean its always premeditated and outside the context of an altercation. For example, I can deliberately grap the kitchen knife during a fight. C3: Proportionality Already responses too