Forward Thinking: Were You To Write Self-Defense Laws, What Would They Say?

Forward Thinking: Were You To Write Self-Defense Laws, What Would They Say? July 22, 2013

Forward Thinking is a values development project in which bi-monthly bloggers around the internet are prompted by Libby Anne of Love Joy Feminism or me to write about a topic related to important values, practices, and applied ethics issues.

Today, Libby Anne has posted a round up of bloggers’ answers to the question, “What is Personhood?”

In the wake of George Zimmerman’s controversial acquittal of murder and manslaughter charges for the death of Trayvon Martin based on a self-defense argument, people seemingly around the world are riven with debates over the meaning and justification and limits of the right to self-defense.

I would like us to abstract away from the particular details of this case and ask bloggers to write about the general question, “What sorts of reasoning and priorities should go into self-defense laws so that they can be as ethical as possible?”

While your discussion of the general ethics and ideal laws related to self-defense can discuss the Zimmerman case, they by no means need to. And I do not intend to include in the round up of replies aspects of blog posts that deal with other pieces of the Zimmerman case or other vitally important controversies stemming from the case, unless they can be tied in directly to the ethics and ideal laws for self-defense. This is not because the other topics are not important but because I want this to be about the general ethical and legal issue and not the case that brought it so inescapably to the center of cultural consciousness these days.

To have your blog post on this topic included in the round up of replies, please remember to submit it to me at camelswithhammers at gmail dot com or I cannot guarantee I will see it or remember it.

Your Thoughts?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment