Tiffany Huet Class of 2008 Justifying Violence: A ... - Stetson University

Introduction
This paper is about the ethical justification of killing from religious convictions. Initially,
my interest in the question of the ethical questions about violence was embedded in the writings
and actions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian during World War II, who attempted to
assassinate Hitler and was ultimately killed for it. It was interesting to read his initial, pacifistic
beliefs about what the Christian should look like today and then see him seemingly contradict
himself later with this deliberate proposal and plan of premeditated violence. How is it that a
man who claims a Christian should live for others (as opposed to living for oneself) is able to
justify an elaborate conspiracy to kill someone? Of course, I realize that this person we are
discussing is Hitler, who is frequently used as the epitome of evil in human form; however, the
basis of the question I was raising in these initial phases of my study was not concerning the
concentration of evil found in Hitler’s undoubtedly disturbed psyche. The question was
concerning Bonhoeffer’s adherence to his own code of ethics, which he adjusted as he
experienced and witnessed the evil of Nazism and became involved in active resistance. Why the
adjustment? How does he drastically alter his ethic to fit in the action of tyrannicide? These
questions (and more) were answered, I found, in a rather remarkable and innovative work by
Larry Rasmussen.
Hence, the shape of this present study has become comparative. I wanted to understand
which justifications, if any, for an act of violence could actually justify the violent act. As a
result, I decided to compare two examples of Christian violence and one of Muslim “terrorism”
with the underlying question, “Does any difference exist between the two?” The purpose of this
paper is, therefore, to analyze and contrast the logic whereby each of the proponents of killing
3