If we take rights seriously, how do we resolve the tension between different parts of the right to life? How do we tell which takes precedence in conflict situations? Is it the right of people not to be attacked? Or the right of people to defend themselves when their lives are threatened? A common philosophical method for trying to deal with hard questions like these is to begin with easy cases and see if we can extrapolate from them. Perhaps this familiar strategy can help us to determine whether we should accept absolute noncombatant immunity or recognize exceptions in extreme cases when attacking civilians is the only means of resisting an extraordinary threat.

If we decide that defensive rights take precedence, then people who are in dire enough circumstances may have a right to engage in terrorist acts, whether they be bombings of cities by powerful air forces or the use of small bombs in markets and buses. If we decide that immunity rights take precedence, then no matter how dire the circumstances or how severe the threat, no one has a right to protect themselves by killing innocent people.

THE SIMPLE MODEL OF JUSTIFIABLE DEFENSE IN ORDINARY LIFE AND IN WAR

In standard, uncontroversial cases of justified self-defense, there is no clash between immunity rights and defensive rights. This is what makes these cases uncontroversial. If someone unjustifiably tries to kill you, you have a right to defend yourself from attack and to use lethal force if necessary.