In the ethical dilemma of a woman choosing to fight back against an attacker/rapist or submitting, several moral and ethical issues arise. Let’s break it down:
1. The Moral/Legal Right to Self-Defense:
The most immediate moral issue concerns the right to self-defense. A woman has a fundamental right to protect herself against any form of aggression, especially something as heinous as sexual assault. Fighting back is a direct response to an immediate violation of her autonomy and body, and morally, it aligns with the principle of protecting one’s right to life and dignity. Legally, most jurisdictions would support the use of reasonable force in self-defense, particularly in cases involving sexual violence.
2. The Ethical Dilemma of Submission for Preservation:
On the other hand, submission might be seen as a pragmatic choice if the woman believes it could minimize harm or further violence. The ethical question here is whether it is better to submit and possibly survive with fewer physical injuries, even though it may involve enduring a traumatic violation. This choice could be viewed through the lens of utilitarian ethics, where the woman might calculate the potential outcomes and decide that submission could lead to less immediate harm or death.
3. False Dichotomy:
It’s important to recognize that this might be a false dichotomy in that the woman might not only have the two options of fighting or submitting. For example, there could be other alternatives such as fleeing, seeking help, or negotiating in certain situations. However, in the heat of the moment, the options may feel severely limited.
4. Who Holds the Moral Responsibility?:
The moral responsibility in this situation lies predominantly with the attacker. The woman is a victim of an aggressor, and her choices are constrained by the extreme duress of the situation. The attacker is violating her fundamental rights, which makes the ethical burden fall squarely on him. Any decision the woman makes, whether to fight or submit, is a reaction to this violation.
5. Right vs Right Issues:
This dilemma can also be framed as a "right vs right" issue. Both choices — fighting back or submitting — could be morally justified depending on the context. Fighting back aligns with the right to self-defense, but submission could also be seen as the right to preserve one’s life in the face of overwhelming odds. The conflict is that both actions can be seen as "right" but are contradictory in practice since they cannot be performed simultaneously.
Truth vs Loyalty: There’s a possible internal conflict between remaining true to oneself and one's values (fighting back) versus loyalty to the instinct of survival (submitting).
Self vs Community: Fighting back could be seen as an act of self-assertion, while submission might be viewed as a sacrifice made to stay alive, potentially for the sake of loved ones.
Short-term vs Long-term: The short-term benefit of submission might be survival with fewer physical injuries, but the long-term psychological harm could be significant. Conversely, fighting back might lead to severe physical harm in the short term, but the long-term sense of empowerment or justice could be stronger.
6. Resolution Principles:
Ends-based Principle: If the outcome of submission is survival without further injury, it might justify that choice. However, if fighting back leads to the attacker being incapacitated or arrested, that could also justify the means.
Utilitarian Principle: The woman might weigh the ratio of benefit to harm — fighting back may incur more immediate physical harm but could prevent future attacks (on her or others), while submission might minimize immediate harm but result in long-term emotional trauma.
Kantian Duty Principle: Kantian ethics would likely support fighting back, as it emphasizes the importance of treating oneself as an end, not a means to someone else’s desires. Submitting could violate the categorical imperative to uphold one’s dignity and autonomy.
Care/Compassion/Empathy Principle: This principle might support submission if the woman feels that her survival is the most compassionate outcome for herself and her loved ones.
7. Cultural and Philosophical Perspectives:
Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Ayn Rand might argue that fighting back is the rational choice because it aligns with the protection of one’s life and liberty, which are of utmost importance.
Christianity: Christian teachings might offer a complex view. While turning the other cheek is a tenet, the Bible also supports the idea of justice and protecting the temple of one’s body. Thus, fighting back could be seen as justified.
Buddhism: Buddhism might focus on minimizing harm, suggesting that the path of least suffering (which could be submission or fighting back, depending on the specific situation) is the most ethical choice.
Pragmatism: From a pragmatic standpoint, the decision would be based on the most realistic appraisal of the situation — whichever action is most likely to result in survival or minimize harm.
8. Values Hierarchy:
Life and Survival: The most fundamental value at stake is the woman’s life and her physical safety.
Dignity and Autonomy: Another significant value is the woman’s sense of self-respect and control over her body.
Justice: There is also a value related to justice, as fighting back may prevent the attacker from committing further crimes.
Psychological and Emotional Well-being: The long-term psychological impact of both fighting back or submission must also be considered.
In conclusion, the moral and ethical issues surrounding a woman’s decision to fight back against an attacker or submit are deeply complex and depend on various factors such as survival, dignity, and the potential outcomes. Each choice has its moral justifications, and the right decision can vary based on the specific circumstances.
sources
1 How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth M. Kidder
2 Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker
In addition
Expanding on this dilemma, let’s delve deeper into the philosophical and moral layers of the decision between fighting back or submitting in the context of an attacker or rapist.
Moral Agency and Autonomy:
At the core of this dilemma is the concept of moral agency — the woman’s right to make decisions about her own body and well-being. Fighting back is a direct assertion of autonomy, as it represents the woman taking control of the situation and trying to resist the violation of her body. Submission, on the other hand, may also be seen as an exercise of autonomy, particularly if the woman feels that doing so is the best way to preserve her life or minimize further harm. This raises the question of whether submission is a surrender of autonomy or a strategic choice to protect oneself in the face of overwhelming force [2].
Self-Defense and Justice:
From a legal and ethical standpoint, self-defense is recognized as a fundamental right in most societies. Fighting back against an attacker, particularly in the context of sexual violence, can be seen as an act of justice, as it seeks to prevent the attacker from succeeding in their violation. However, there are also risks associated with this choice — the attacker may retaliate with greater violence, potentially leading to more severe injury or even death. Ethically, this could be framed as a utilitarian calculation: Will fighting back lead to a better overall outcome in terms of harm reduction? The answer to this question may depend on factors such as the attacker’s strength, the woman’s ability to defend herself, and the likelihood of external intervention [1].
Psychological and Emotional Consequences:
Both fighting back and submitting can lead to profound psychological and emotional consequences. For some women, the act of fighting back may be empowering, reinforcing a sense of control over their body and situation. However, if the attempt to fight back fails, it could result in feelings of guilt or helplessness, as well as increased trauma from the physical violence inflicted by the attacker. Submission, while potentially minimizing immediate physical harm, may lead to long-term emotional scars, including feelings of shame, guilt, and powerlessness. The moral dilemma here is whether short-term physical safety should be prioritized over long-term emotional well-being [2].
Cultural and Societal Expectations:
Cultural and societal frameworks can also influence how this dilemma is perceived. In some cultures, there may be a strong emphasis on fighting back as a moral duty, as it aligns with values of resistance and personal dignity. In other contexts, submission may be seen as a pragmatic choice, particularly if the societal expectation is that survival at any cost is the most important outcome. These cultural narratives can shape the woman’s decision, either by encouraging her to assert her rights through self-defense or by promoting submission as a means of avoiding further harm [1].
Potential for False Dichotomy:
It’s also worth considering whether the framing of the dilemma as a binary choice — fight or submit — is a false dichotomy. There may be other options available, such as attempting to escape, using de-escalation tactics, or seeking help if possible. However, in the high-stress, time-sensitive situation of an attack, these alternatives may seem inaccessible or unrealistic. The psychological pressure of the moment often reduces perceived choices, leading to a focus on immediate survival [2].
Ethical Paradigms:
Let’s examine this dilemma through the lens of ethical paradigms:
Truth vs Loyalty: Fighting back may be seen as staying true to one’s instincts for survival and justice, while submission could be viewed as an act of loyalty to the instinct for self-preservation, even if it means enduring harm.
Self vs Community: The decision to fight back may be motivated not only by self-defense but also by a desire to prevent the attacker from harming others in the future. Submission, on the other hand, may prioritize personal survival, possibly at the expense of allowing the attacker to evade immediate consequences.
Short-Term vs Long-Term: Submission may seem like the safer short-term option, reducing the risk of immediate physical harm. However, in the long term, it could lead to deeper emotional trauma or regret. Conversely, fighting back might result in more physical harm in the short term but could provide a stronger sense of empowerment and justice in the long run [2].
Philosophical and Religious Perspectives:
Kantian Ethics: From a Kantian standpoint, fighting back could be seen as the morally obligatory action, as it aligns with the principle of treating oneself as an end, not merely a means to another’s end (in this case, the attacker’s desires). Kant’s categorical imperative would likely argue against submission, as it could be viewed as compromising one’s dignity and humanity [1].
Christianity: Christian teachings on this issue may be complex. While the New Testament emphasizes forgiveness and turning the other cheek, it also upholds the importance of justice and protecting the weak. In this context, fighting back could be seen as an act of justice, while submission might be regarded as a form of sacrifice or forbearance, depending on the situation [2].
Buddhism: A Buddhist perspective might focus on the principle of minimizing suffering. If fighting back is likely to result in greater harm or violence, submission might be seen as the path of least suffering. However, Buddhism also emphasizes the importance of right action and protecting oneself from harm, which could support the choice to resist [1].
Ayn Rand's Objectivism: Ayn Rand would likely advocate for fighting back, as her philosophy emphasizes the importance of self-interest and individual rights. Submitting to the attacker would be seen as a violation of one’s fundamental right to life and liberty. In Rand’s view, the woman’s primary obligation is to her own survival and well-being, which would justify self-defense as the rational choice [2].
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the decision to fight back or submit during an attack is a deeply personal and morally complex one. Both choices carry significant moral weight and can be justified depending on the context. Fighting back aligns with the principles of self-defense, autonomy, and justice, while submission may be seen as a pragmatic choice to minimize harm in a dangerous situation. Ultimately, the most ethical action may depend on the woman’s assessment of the immediate risks and the potential long-term consequences of her choice. The moral responsibility, however, lies squarely with the attacker, whose actions force the woman into this impossible situation.
The values at play in this dilemma include life and survival, bodily autonomy, justice, dignity, and emotional well-being. Each of these values may be weighed differently depending on the individual and the specific circumstances of the attack [2].
Sources
1 How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth M. Kidder
2 Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker
Finally
Let’s explore even deeper layers of moral and ethical considerations in this dilemma, using a broader philosophical and practical framework to analyze the situation.
Moral Responsibility and Consent:
One of the fundamental moral principles in this situation is the violation of consent. The attacker is committing a grave violation of the woman’s autonomy and dignity, and this inherently places the moral responsibility on the attacker. A woman choosing to submit is not giving consent but rather acting under duress. In this situation, submission is not morally equivalent to consent but a survival mechanism. Thus, the moral responsibility for the harm caused by the attack, regardless of whether the woman fights back or submits, lies solely with the attacker [1].
Empowerment vs Survival:
There’s an inherent tension between the values of empowerment and survival. Fighting back can be seen as an act of empowerment — a reclaiming of control in a moment where the attacker seeks to strip that away. This is often seen as morally courageous because it resists the violation of one’s autonomy. However, survival instincts may compel submission, especially when the woman perceives that resistance could lead to greater harm or even death. In some cases, submission might be the only viable option for survival, which raises the question of whether preserving life should take precedence over the immediate assertion of bodily autonomy [2].
The Psychological Aftermath:
Both choices — fighting back or submitting — can have profound emotional and psychological consequences. Fighting back may lead to a sense of empowerment and justice, but if it fails, it could result in feelings of helplessness, shame, or guilt. Similarly, submission may preserve life but could lead to long-term emotional trauma, such as self-blame, feelings of powerlessness, or PTSD [2]. Ethically, this raises the question of whether prioritizing short-term physical safety (submission) over long-term psychological well-being is justified, or vice versa.
Pragmatism vs Idealism:
From a pragmatic perspective, submission may be seen as the safest option if the woman assesses that she is physically outmatched or in imminent danger of more severe harm. This aligns with the view that the immediate goal is to survive the encounter. On the other hand, an idealistic perspective might emphasize the importance of resisting evil and injustice, even in the face of overwhelming odds. This could align with values like self-respect, moral duty, and standing against oppression — all of which support fighting back, even if the physical risks are high [1].
What Would Different Philosophies Say?
Utilitarianism: A utilitarian might advocate for the choice that minimizes the most harm overall. If submission reduces the likelihood of severe injury or death, utilitarianism might support that option. However, if fighting back could prevent future harm (such as stopping the attacker from assaulting others), utilitarianism could also support resistance, especially if the long-term benefits outweigh the immediate risks [2].
Kantian Ethics: Kantian duty ethics would likely argue that the woman has a duty to herself to protect her autonomy and dignity, making fighting back morally obligatory. Kant’s categorical imperative would reject submission as a violation of the principle that humans should never be treated as mere means to an end (i.e., the attacker’s desires), but rather as ends in themselves [1].
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism: Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism would strongly support fighting back as the rational and moral choice. Rand’s emphasis on individual rights and self-interest would view submission as a form of surrender to evil, while fighting back would be seen as a defense of one’s life and liberty. In Rand’s view, the highest moral purpose is the preservation and flourishing of one’s own life, making resistance both a moral and rational imperative [2].
Buddhism: From a Buddhist perspective, the decision might focus on the action that minimizes suffering, both immediate and long-term. Fighting back could cause more immediate suffering, but it might also prevent long-term emotional trauma by providing a sense of empowerment. However, if fighting back increases the risk of greater harm, Buddhism might advocate for submission as the path of least suffering, especially if it leads to survival without escalating violence [1].
Christianity: Christian teachings could offer multiple perspectives. On one hand, the Bible emphasizes forgiveness and turning the other cheek, which might suggest submission as a form of non-violence. On the other hand, Christianity also upholds the importance of justice and protecting the vulnerable. Fighting back could be seen as an act of moral courage, defending oneself against evil, which would align with the Christian principle of safeguarding one’s dignity as a child of God [2].
The Stench Test / Front-Page Test:
When applying the stench test or front-page test (i.e., imagining how the decision would be viewed if it were publicized), the question becomes: What is the morally defensible action in the eyes of society? Fighting back might be seen as a heroic or justifiable act of self-defense, while submission could be viewed as a pragmatic choice for survival. However, victim-blaming narratives in some societies might unjustly criticize submission, despite it being a reasonable choice under extreme duress [1].
False Assumptions and Dichotomies:
It’s important to ask whether the framing of this dilemma as a binary choice (fight or submit) is a false dichotomy. There may be other alternatives available, such as attempting to flee or de-escalate the situation. However, in the heat of the moment, and given the power dynamics involved, these options may not always be realistic. The psychological stress of the situation can narrow the field of perceived choices, making it feel like only fighting or submitting are viable [2].
The Role of Trauma and Societal Influence:
Societal narratives around victimhood and strength play a significant role in how women perceive their options. Some cultures valorize fighting back as an expression of strength, while others may promote submission as the “safe” or “rational” choice. These cultural influences can shape the woman’s perceived duty to herself, her family, or her community. Additionally, the way society responds to survivors of sexual violence — whether with support or judgment — can influence the moral decision-making process. The potential for victim-blaming may also weigh heavily on a woman’s mind when deciding how to react during an assault [1].
Conclusion: The Hierarchy of Values:
In this complex moral dilemma, the values at play can be ranked in a hierarchy, though this hierarchy may shift depending on the individual and the circumstances:
Life and Survival: At the top of the hierarchy is the value of life itself. Both fighting back and submitting can be seen as attempts to preserve life in different ways.
Autonomy and Dignity: A close second is the value of bodily autonomy and the right to defend oneself against violation.
Justice: Fighting back may also be motivated by a sense of justice — preventing the attacker from succeeding or from harming others in the future.
Emotional and Psychological Well-being: The long-term emotional consequences of either choice also play a significant role. Preserving one’s mental and emotional health after the attack is another critical value.
Community and Support: How the woman’s decision aligns with her community’s values and the support she anticipates receiving may also factor into her choice.
Ultimately, the moral and ethical decision between fighting back or submitting is deeply personal, context-dependent, and influenced by a range of philosophical, cultural, and psychological factors. Both actions have moral justifications, and neither is inherently wrong — the attacker remains the sole bearer of moral responsibility for the violence committed [2].
Sources
1 How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth M. Kidder
2 Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker
