Continuation of this first thread , this second thread , and this third thread. Principle 4: Reasonable Force in Self-Defense There are two types of war: offensive, and defensive. An offensive war is one in which the attacking army seeks to take away rights enjoyed by another people. In contrast, in a defensive war, the attacking army fights to protect inalienable rights. Whether the American colonists were right or wrong in breaking away from England is not relevant here. What is relevant is that they published to all the world a statement regarding war that is still read and quoted today. That statement is called the Declaration of Independence. It boldly endorses defensive war for a nation; so does aikido, but in the context of individuals. The Declaration says of a people suffering under "absolute Despotism" that "it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." If that new government prove equally abusive toward inalienable rights, then, according to the text of the Declaration, it too should be thrown off. But nothing in the Declaration can be used to support an offensive war. The Declaration is clearly based upon a belief that peace cannot be obtained at the expense of property and of liberty; rather, one must repel force with force. Thomas Jefferson, penmen of the Declaration, later said that one of the "important principles" of the self-government created by the war for independence was "that it is their [the common people's] right and duty to be at all times armed." [24] But nothing in the Declaration, nor any contemporaneous quotes of those who signed it, can be read to promote the conquering of England or any other nation, or even a desire to fight. Keeping in that same vein, the martial side of aikido is filled with techniques for "throwing off" and otherwise repelling aggressors. Ueshiba agreed with the "peace through strength" approach to liberty. He taught his students, "Master the divine techniques of the Art of Peace, and no enemy will dare to challenge you." [28] And like the Declaration, aikido does not set forth a substantive offense. Although many of the techniques in aikido could inflict injury on the receiving person, aikido was not designed for waging an offensive war. It was designed for defense. "Aikido is an extremely simple form of martial art: it contains only the necessities of self-defense," writes one author. [29] Another author quotes Ueshiba as saying : In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. Let attackers come any way they like and then blend with them. Never chase after opponents.[30] However, even though the signers of the Declaration and Ueshiba alike endorsed reasonable violence in the context of self-defense, both the Declaration and aikido are expressly founded upon a belief that all Men are born with "inalienable rights," one of which is life. All people have an inalienable right to life. The writers of the Declaration considered the existence of this inalienable right to be self-evident. So did Ueshiba. He believed that, "All the principles of heaven and earth are living inside you. Life itself is the truth, and this will never change." [31] The inalienable right to life means that people have a right to not be killed unjustly. This belief showed in their great hesitation of American colonists fight England. Aikido takes this very seriously too. "To injure an opponent is to injure yourself," Ueshiba said. "To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace." [32] The stated purpose of aikido is to protect the inalienable rights of all people. It does promote the use of force toward this end. But more specifically, the purpose of aikido is protect all human life and spread love (the fruit of which is happiness, another inalienable right) to all people everywhere. [33] During his visit to the first aikido school in Hawaii Ueshiba said: I have come to Hawaii in order to build a "silver bridge." Until now, I have remained in Japan, building a "golden bridge" to unite Japan, but henceforward, I wish to build a bridge to bring the different countries of the world together through the harmony and love contained in aikido. I think that aiki, offspring of the martial arts, can unite the people of the world in harmony, in the true spirit of budo [Way of the Warrior, the moral and spiritual lifestyle of a master martial artist], enveloping the world in unchanging love. [34] And another time Ueshiba said: The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood as a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek competition are making a grave mistake. To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst sin a human being can commit. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love. [35] This might seem paradoxical, even contradictory, to the uninitiated. Aikido is undeniably a fighting style. It is a system of armed and unarmed combat. But the lesson behind Ueshiba's words becomes clear once one understands the tactics of aikido, because, "[a]ikido, purely in its practical application, is an art of self-defense. It is entirely reflexive, and related ethically to defense against an unprovoked attack. There is no attack in aikido. When the techniques are applied by aikidoists who have achieved a certain degree of mastery in the art, they will leave no serious injury in their wake." [36] Aikido's use of force is therefore never unreasonable. It is never excessive. It diffuses an attack, and then it stops, because the goal is love other people, not hurt other people. This is what “reasonable force” means for self-defense. footnotes – [24] Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright on June 5, 1824. [28] John Stevens, "The Art of Peace," (Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc., 1992), p. 104. [29] William Gleason, "The Spiritual Foundations of Aikido," (Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books, 1995), p. 104. [30] Stevens, p. 95. [31] Stevens, p. 22. [32] Stevens, p. 64. [33] The dedication to Adele Westbrook and Oscar Ratti’s "Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere," (Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 45th printing, 1996), reads: "To Master Morihei Uyeshiba who did not believe his aikido was for any particular individual, elite or nation - but for the whole human family." (Uyeshiba is a variant way to spell Ueshiba.) [34] Morihei Ueshiba, "Budo: Teachings of the Founder of Aikido," (New York: Kodansha International, Ltd., paperback edition, 1996), pp. 21-22. [35] Stevens, p. 8 [36] Ratti and Westbrook, p. 19.
Very nice again aikiMac. I had a few difficulties with this topic because I thought it was talking about reasonable force, but very little of what I could see had to do with reasonable force. Maybe just my mis-understanding. One issue I also had was with the use of some of the quotes about Aikido from others you used. I would have rather seen the original words from Ueshiba with a qualifier of what that person thought those words meant. The context of when Ueshiba said what he said may be similar to the context of today, but it wasn't exactly the same. Context can make a big difference in how something is translated and I feel (IMHO) that some of the interpetation are endanger of taking things too far out of context. The above statement is at the root of the paradoxical, IMHO. Firstly, what is the definition of the uninitiated? Pardox does exist, it is the nature of the manifest and hidden worlds that what might be true in one would be false in the other. I would not say the initiated have any less pardox in what is true or not true, the difference could be just in the ACCEPTANCE of things. To be able to accept that there are these paradoxes better. We are not all knowing, we are not completely perfect, there will always be paradoxes in life. And this quote: "[a]ikido, purely in its practical application, is an art of self-defense. It is entirely reflexive, and related ethically to defense against an unprovoked attack. There is no attack in aikido. When the techniques are applied by aikidoists who have achieved a certain degree of mastery in the art, they will leave no serious injury in their wake." It addresses the very serious issue of practical application. Practical application is at the heart of martial arts, IMHO. Practical application is not some pipe dream or in some philosophy, it is in the doing. It is hands on, get it to work when it is needed. How can an entire art be practical... excuse my attitude, but that is BS. And referring to just Aikido, is practical "Aikido" application any different than just practical application? The key being practical, meaning that it works when you need it to work -- it is reliable and effective, it gets the job done... etc. Can practical application fail? It certainly can, nothing is perfect and all practical really means is that it does what it is supposed to do a vast majority of the time given a real situation. If we can agree that many techniques taught in Aikido are designed not to cause serious injury if the enemy does not resist, then I can say that the application of Aikido is designed not to cause serious injury. This would be a half truth because if an enemy attacks aggressively with the utmost intention to hurt, resist, and never give up, then by the nature of the techniques, the enemy will be hurt, even if by their own means. If we can agree that the goal of combat is the subjugation of the enemy, then Aikido, by its nature of causing no injury can only be practical application against those that are willing to stop before someone is seriously injured. Subjugation by means of hurting or killing the enemy would not be Aikido -- although such subjugation in the manifest world could be utterly practical and effective. On the contrary, I believe that then the goal of Aikido is to NOT fight, as stated as the art of non-resistance, but to instead reach a point that by your actions, the enemy loses their will to fight, they are subjugated because they no longer feel they must fight. If then faced with an enemy that will not stop, will not give up, will not tire, then if you try only to not hurt, you will end up being hurt or killed because the enemy cannot be convinced to give up. Take this example, an enemy completely lost of his senses because of PCP or some other illegal mind and body bending substance, an insane enemy. One with the intent to kill, and to kill you. Will not stop, will not tire, will never give up willfully. You may not have the intention to hurt, but by entering combat, which you have little choice in the matter, you have already failed. This enemy can only be stopped by force, and if you lack the force to stop, you will break the enemy, bone by bone, until they can no longer move OR you will die -- there is no escape. All I am saying is that even with the best intentions, the world and people are not perfect, we will fail in our intentions, sometimes completely out of our control. All we can do is accept that things happen and do our best. Practical application is what works, the choice of what application (level of force) is legal to use is defined by the continuum of force. This is all based on what a reasonable person would do under the same situation. Context is very important.
I'll get back to you on these in a few days. Thanks. (If it needs rewriting, it needs rewriting. I'm cool with that.)
I don't see any problem. Reasonable force to me means you do what you have to to protect yourself and bring a situation to an end. Which is pretty much what I think Mac was talking about. In a "civilised" society we assume we are allowed to defend ourselves if we are attacked. Pinning an attacker to the ground while help arrives would be resonable. What would be unreasonable is knocking the guy to the ground then jumping all over his head until it's little more than a squishy mess.
What AikiMac wrote was good, my concerns are with how does one equate reasonable force with practical application? Practical application is not always defined as reasonable force, and reasonable force is not always defined as practical application. Context is very important. What if it isn't practical to pin a person to the ground without hurting them? Think of a situation with multiple attackers, perhaps. Pinning someone to the ground can be practical and very effective, but is most difficult in multiple attacker situations or if the enemy allows you to break their limb in a struggle just to get out of it and fight on. To have the intention of not hurting another human being is good (and should be the way it is in life) but we are not all mind-readers, sometimes an enemy based on the situation and their intentions will have to be hurt in order to save innocents. This is not to say take the law into your own hands, but it is to say that one has to accept that people will get hurt despite the best intentions. Take responsibility for actions and accept the risks. Only if the enemy fights an up-and-up fight will the enemy surrender and be honorable about it. If the enemy is under the influence of social or mind-bending influences, their state of mind may be in a condition to deceive and never give up until their body cannot go on any longer, and you must be prepared for the worst.
