Coherence as the Fourth Principle of Defensive Ethics

 

Table of Content
1. Introduction
2. Principle of Coherence
3. Case Study Applications
4. Conclusion

1. INTRODUCTION

Coherence is the fourth principle of Defensive Ethics because it secures the internal order on which ethical conduct depends when the stability of agency is under strain. Whereas the earlier principles identify what must be protected (Self-Preservation), how persons stand in relation to one another (Equality), and how conduct should adapt within the relational field (Reciprocity), Coherence ensures that these orientations do not drift apart when uncertainty, emotion, and volatility increase. It is the structural discipline that preserves unity across perception, evaluation, intention, and action, preventing defensive behaviour from fragmenting into impulse or confusion.

In the naturalized framework developed throughout this chapter, coherence reflects the organism’s capacity to maintain an integrated evaluative stance while navigating shifting conditions. It protects the moral architecture that gives defensive action its meaning, ensuring that an agent remains oriented within the shared moral field even when time compresses and tension rises. Case studies illuminate this principle by showing how integrated moral orientation produces stabilizing action, and how collapse within that orientation distorts behaviour. What follows are two scenarios that demonstrate, in concrete form, how coherence governs the integrity of defensive conduct.

2. PRINCIPLE OF COHERENCE

Coherence is the fourth principle of Defensive Ethics because it sustains the integrity of moral life under conditions of volatility, uncertainty, and threat. Biologically, coherence refers to the integration of functions—perception, regulation, emotion, and action—that enables an organism to maintain stability amid continual perturbation. Neuroscientific research shows that living systems preserve viability through coordinated processes of prediction, adjustment, and error correction. When these functions drift out of alignment, fragmentation follows.[1] Coherence, in this natural sense, is the dynamic unity that allows a system to adapt without disintegrating—to remain stable while responding intelligently to its environment.

From biology to moral order. Human beings act within layered environments shaped by perception, emotion, social meaning, and evaluative commitment. To remain morally coherent is to maintain alignment across these layers—to ensure that what one perceives, judges, and does form a unified orientation toward preserving agency.[2] Moral incoherence arises when these layers diverge: when fear overrides judgment, when intention fails to guide behavior, or when principle collapses under situational pressure. Under conditions of interpersonal violence, such incoherence can produce moral and tactical failure—misreading intent, escalating needlessly, or acting in ways that contradict one’s deepest commitments.

Coherence thus has two interlocking dimensions; intrapersonal and inter-principle.

Intrapersonal coherence refers to the internal integration of perception, evaluation, intention, and action. It is the capacity to sustain consistency through clarity of purpose while adapting to changing circumstances. A coherent agent resists distortions such as rationalization, hypocrisy, selective moral application, or emotional overreach.[3] In self-defense contexts, coherence enables the defender to process threat signals accurately, regulate fear-driven impulses, and align force with the evaluative orientations established in Self-Preservation and Equality. It allows a defender to remain anchored when cognitive load increases, attention narrows, and stress physiology intensifies.[4]

Inter-principle coherence preserves the structural integrity of Defensive Ethics itself. Each principle—Self-Preservation, Equality, Reciprocity, and Congruence—captures a distinct moral orientation, yet none can operate in isolation. Coherence ensures that these orientations remain mutually regulating. It prevents Self-Preservation from drifting into opportunism, Equality from dissolving into abstraction, Reciprocity from hardening into symmetrical pacifism, and Congruence from being mistaken for mere effectiveness.[5] Coherence binds the principles into an integrated framework, guarding against selective invocation or moral inconsistency.

Function under threat. Defensive encounters are volatile: threat states narrow attention, heighten emotional arousal, and impair higher-order reasoning. Under such pressure, moral fragmentation becomes a genuine risk. [6] Coherence stabilizes the defender’s orientation, ensuring that evaluation, restraint, and purpose remain aligned even when time compresses and fear intensifies. A coherent defense is one in which action reflects principle rather than impulse, proportion rather than escalation, and moral identity rather than situational drift.

Temporal and structural steadiness. Coherence demands consistency across time and context—steadiness of judgment and conduct both within a single encounter and across comparable situations. It provides the continuity and consistency that allows moral identity to endure despite shifting conditions.

Relation to congruence. Coherence and Congruence form complementary dimensions of consistency and integrity. Coherence asks whether perception, judgment, intention, and execution align; Congruence asks whether action and its foreseeable effects fit the justificatory aim. Coherence governs the integrity of deliberation and execution; congruence evaluates the fidelity of results to reasons. Together they ensure that moral understanding remains ordered both within the agent and across the arc of action.

Integrative role. Coherence therefore prevents defensive action from collapsing into confusion or contradiction. It maintains the continuity of moral agency through volatility, enabling the defender to act with clarity rather than panic, proportionality rather than excess, and integrity rather than opportunism. By preserving the moral architecture that justifies protective force in the first place, coherence keeps defensive conduct anchored in the shared moral field that violence seeks to destabilize.

3. CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF COHERENCE

Coherence can be difficult to illustrate in abstraction because it concerns the consistent integration and alignment of principles rather than any single outward behaviour. Unlike Self-Preservation, Equality, or Reciprocity—which each present a clear moral orientation—Coherence describes the inner order that holds these orientations together during a defensive encounter. Its role becomes clearest when events place pressure on that internal structure. Defensive situations are precisely such moments: they compress time, heighten emotion, and challenge the stability of one’s evaluative frame.

Case studies therefore help reveal how Coherence functions not as a technical skill but as a moral discipline—a way of keeping Self-Preservation, Equality, and Reciprocity aligned as a unified stance toward the other. The purpose of the following examples is not to judge outcomes through legal or procedural standards, but to show how actions may either express or fracture the moral architecture the defender claims to inhabit. These scenarios demonstrate how Coherence either preserves the relational field in which defensive action gains its meaning, or collapses it when one principle overtakes the others. They show, in concrete form, how Coherence stabilizes orientation when the integrity of agency is under strain.

Case Study I: Alignment of Coherence.

Daniel is a 28 year old store clerk who walks through a parking garage after getting off his shift at dusk. The space is open but poorly lit, the sounds of distant traffic muted by concrete walls. As he turns a corner toward the stairwell, he hears quickened footsteps approaching from behind. The sound is close enough, and fast enough, that Daniel cannot easily interpret whether the person is hurrying toward him or simply rushing past. His body responds first: his breathing shortens, attention sharpens, and Self-Preservation becomes active as a natural protective orientation.

He pivots and sees a figure emerging from shadow—moving directly toward him, head slightly down, hands partially obscured by long sleeves. The person is close enough that Daniel cannot clearly read intent, and the rapid approach compresses the time available to interpret signals. The moment is ambiguous, charged, and morally significant.

Yet Daniel does not lose his frame. His orientation remains integrated. Self-Preservation alerts him to the possible danger, but the recognition of the other’s standing—Equality—remains present as a background discipline. He does not preemptively treat the figure as a threat-object. Instead, his perception remains open, scanning for additional cues rather than filling in the unknown with hostility.

Influenced by Reciprocity, Daniel’s immediate action matches the movement of the encounter: he raises his hands to chest level, steps back to rebuild space, and issues a firm verbal signal. His posture is protective, not punitive. When the figure continues forward too quickly, Daniel uses a controlled shoulder redirection—enough to interrupt the forward motion and create distance, but not enough to degrade the other’s standing or to inflict unnecessary harm. When the figure stumbles, Daniel moves away toward open space. From this vantage, he sees clearly that it is a teenager rushing to catch the bus that stops outside the garage.

Daniel allows his stance to soften. He does not continue acting defensively. He does not escalate. He does not reinterpret the teenager as a threat retroactively. The moment settles as soon as the ambiguity dissolves.

Expanded Analysis

The coherence of Daniel’s response becomes evident when the principles of Defensive Ethics function together as an integrated moral orientation shaping his conduct throughout the encounter. Moments of uncertainty mobilize the body and compress evaluative space, creating conditions where Self-Preservation can easily eclipse the other principles. Daniel’s behaviour shows a different pattern. His initial protective activation is held within a broader evaluative frame in which Equality and Reciprocity continue to regulate his orientation. Equality remains active as a quiet discipline that prevents the other person from collapsing into a threat-image, sustaining recognition even when visibility and interpretive time are limited. This internal steadiness preserves the relational field and keeps Daniel’s perception open to emerging cues.

Daniel’s defensive movement further demonstrates Coherence’s integrative function. His posture, verbal signal, and controlled redirection arise through an orientation responsive to the evolving moment. The action that takes shape is protective while remaining connected to the shared structure of agency. His movement reflects the relational calibration described by Reciprocity, revealing an adaptive sensitivity to the situational dynamics rather than a fixed or reactive impulse. This responsiveness shows that Daniel’s principles are operative commitments, not abstract positions held separately from action.

A decisive sign of Coherence appears in Daniel’s ability to let the encounter settle once ambiguity dissolves. When he realizes the figure is a teenager rushing to catch a bus, his defensive posture relaxes without hesitation. This transition illustrates that his principles do not harden into defensive rigidity; they remain flexible enough to release activation when the conditions of agency are no longer under strain. Equality resumes full prominence, and Reciprocity shifts his orientation back toward ordinary interpersonal space. The ease of this adjustment indicates a stable evaluative architecture in which Self-Preservation does not insist on priority once contextual clarity returns.

Taken together, these elements show why Daniel’s conduct exemplifies Coherence. The encounter remains anchored in recognition, relational openness, and principle-guided responsiveness. His defensive movement emerges from the unified activity of Self-Preservation, Equality, and Reciprocity rather than from the prominence of any single impulse. This alignment preserves both his own agency and the moral conditions that structure relational life. Coherence, in this sense, is the capacity to maintain an integrated evaluative stance even when perception narrows and time compresses—a stability that allows defensive action to arise as an ordered expression of moral orientation.

What this case shows

• Integration of principles under strain: Daniel’s response demonstrates how Self-Preservation, Equality, and Reciprocity can remain mutually regulating even when conditions are ambiguous and emotionally charged.
• Preservation of the relational field: The other person is not reduced to a threat-image; their standing as an agent remains active in Daniel’s perception and behaviour.
• Adaptive modulation of action: His defensive movement arises from ongoing engagement with the situation, adjusting as the encounter unfolds rather than following a fixed pattern or singular impulse.
• Internal discipline of Self-Preservation: Protective orientation does not override or distort the other principles; instead, it works within a coherent moral structure that constrains escalation.
• Willingness to let the moment settle: When the ambiguity resolves, Daniel’s defensive stance dissolves accordingly, showing responsiveness rather than rigidity.
• Expression of unified moral orientation: The action reflects the coordinated activity of the principles, preserving the defender’s integrity without compromising the moral space shared with others.

Case Study II: Violation of Coherence

Daniel again walks through the parking garage in the late afternoon, the light beginning to fade behind the concrete pillars. As he rounds a corner, a young person steps forward from the open space near the stairwell. The boy is slight, unhurried, and maintains an easy distance. His hands are visible at his sides. In a calm voice he asks whether Daniel might have a moment to spare some change for the bus. Nothing in his posture, tone, or movement signals an attempt to close space unexpectedly or interfere with Daniel’s ability to move freely. The relational field at this moment remains intact—open, stable, and morally ordinary.

Yet Daniel’s internal orientation shifts sharply. A sudden wave of unease contracts his awareness. Instead of allowing Self-Preservation to be guided by the presence of Equality and Reciprocity, he experiences it as a singular, overriding impulse. The boy’s approach is not ambiguous; it is simply unexpected. But Daniel’s evaluative stance collapses inward, narrowing his perception until the boy is no longer encountered as a person but as an indistinct source of danger. The subtle cues that normally sustain mutual recognition are eclipsed by an inward tightening that isolates Daniel within his own sense of vulnerability.

Acting from this constricted frame, Daniel’s behaviour breaks from the moral architecture he ordinarily affirms. He steps aggressively toward the boy and strikes him in the chest, sending him backward. This movement does not arise from a relational reading of the situation or from the coordinated activity of the principles. Instead, it expresses a fragmentation of the evaluative structure: Self-Preservation has detached from the other principles and now dominates the encounter independent of any relational cues. Equality has fallen out of the frame entirely; the boy is no longer perceived as someone whose standing parallels Daniel’s own. Reciprocity is similarly absent, as Daniel’s action makes no attempt to engage with or interpret the boy’s behaviour as it is actually unfolding.

The moment becomes a demonstration of what happens when the principles lose their internal alignment. The strike does not stabilize the relational field or preserve Daniel’s agency within it; instead, it disrupts the moral space by imposing force upon someone who had not conditioned the moment with threat. The orientation from which Daniel acts is no longer responsive to the shared conditions of agency but driven by a unilateral contraction. Even after the boy stumbles backward in shock and confusion, Daniel’s internal state does not immediately re-expand. The moral frame does not restore itself until the encounter has already fractured.

What marks this scenario as a violation of Coherence is that Daniel’s behaviour no longer embodied the integrated moral structure that ordinarily guides defensive action. The defensive movement did not arise from the interplay of Self-Preservation, Equality, and Reciprocity; it emerged from the collapse of that interplay. In this fragmentation, the moral architecture lost its unity, and the resulting action reflected a distortion that emerges when one principle overwhelms the others rather than the structure Daniel claims to uphold. The relational field—where defensive action ordinarily finds its meaning—was destabilized not by the boy’s behaviour, but by the disintegration of Daniel’s evaluative stance.

Expanded Analysis

Daniel’s conduct in this scenario displays a distinct pattern of evaluative collapse that reveals what a violation of Coherence looks like in lived defensive contexts. The encounter begins in an ordinary relational field where the other person’s standing is evident and undisturbed. Yet Daniel’s perception contracts with abrupt intensity, isolating Self-Preservation from the principles that normally regulate its expression. The boy’s behaviour offers no cues of intrusion, coercion, or intent to compromise agency; his approach is legible and open. The shift in Daniel’s orientation therefore arises from an inward disturbance rather than from the conditions of the moment. Coherence depends on the ability to maintain relational openness long enough for the principles to work together; Daniel’s contraction prevents this integrative activity from taking shape.

The erosion of Equality is the first structural indicator of fragmentation. Under stable conditions, Equality functions as a persistent acknowledgment that others share parallel moral standing. Its role is not contingent on comfort or expectation; it continues to operate across uncertainty. In this scenario, however, the boy’s standing as an agent vanishes from Daniel’s evaluative frame almost immediately. The other is no longer encountered as a person making a simple request but as an indistinct source of danger. This displacement signals a failure to sustain the structural recognition that anchors moral life, revealing how quickly evaluative orientation can detach from the relational field when fear contracts perception.

The disintegration of Reciprocity further exposes the breakdown. Reciprocity allows an agent’s movement to be shaped by the cues the other provides. It is a dynamic, relational sensitivity that adjusts behaviour in light of how the situation actually unfolds. Here, the boy offers clear signals—visible hands, calm voice, steady posture. Daniel’s response does not engage with these cues. His action emerges from an internal projection rather than from interaction. Once Reciprocity ceases to guide perception and behaviour, action becomes disconnected from the shared moment and from the evaluative structure that normally shapes defensive conduct.

The core violation lies in the widening gap between Daniel’s principles and the behaviour that emerges. Coherence requires that Self-Preservation remain tethered to the broader moral architecture, allowing defensive action to arise from the interplay of principles rather than from the dominance of a single impulse. In this scenario, Self-Preservation expands without the orientation of Equality or the relational calibration of Reciprocity. Action arising from this configuration carries the signature of fragmentation. It reflects an evaluative posture that has drifted away from the framework Daniel would ordinarily affirm, and the resulting behaviour lacks the structural integrity that gives defensive action its meaning.

The aftermath of the moment shows how fragmentation extends beyond the instant of force. Daniel’s evaluative stance remains constricted even after the boy recoils in confusion, and the relational field does not recover until the encounter has already fractured. An intact coherence would allow rapid de-escalation once the cues shift; incoherence prolongs the disturbance, altering both the behaviour and the agent’s ability to restore equilibrium. This lingering constriction illustrates how evaluative collapse affects not only the nature of the action but the temporal arc of the entire encounter.

Taken together, these features show that moral disorder emerges when the unity of the principles fails and the agent no longer acts from a coordinated evaluative stance. Daniel’s action loses its grounding in the architecture of Self-Preservation guided by Equality and Reciprocity. The relational field destabilizes through his internal contraction rather than through the other person’s conduct. This scenario demonstrates how incoherence transforms defensive action into something unmoored from the principles that normally discipline it, revealing the structural logic by which fragmentation takes hold under pressure.

What this case shows

• Fragmentation of the moral frame: Daniel’s response illustrates how Self-Preservation can break free from the regulating influence of Equality and Reciprocity, leading to a collapse of the evaluative structure that ordinarily governs defensive conduct.
• Loss of mutual recognition: The boy’s standing as an agent is eclipsed by Daniel’s inward contraction, revealing how incoherence often begins with a failure to perceive the other person as occupying the same moral field.
• Breakdown of relational calibration: Daniel’s action does not engage with the boy’s actual cues or behaviour, showing how Reciprocity disintegrates when the defender’s response no longer reflects the unfolding dynamics of the encounter.
• Action detached from principles: The strike arises not from the integrated interplay of the principles but from the dominance of an isolated impulse, demonstrating how defensive action becomes distorted when the principles cease to function as a unified system.
• Destabilization of the shared moral space: The relational field is disrupted not by the boy’s conduct but by Daniel’s evaluative collapse, showing how incoherence fractures the moral conditions that ordinarily structure interpersonal encounters.
• Inability to re-expand the evaluative stance: Daniel’s lingering contraction after the strike reveals how incoherence impairs the defender’s capacity to restore equilibrium once the moment shifts, preventing the moral field from re-stabilizing.

Coherence, therefore, is not about perfection of assessment or flawless emotional regulation. It is the structural discipline that keeps Self-Preservation tethered to Equality and Reciprocity, ensuring that defensive action expresses the relational order in which agency exists. When these principles remain aligned, action emerges as an extension of an integrated moral stance. When alignment fails, action becomes unmoored from the architecture that should shape it. Coherence guards against this fragmentation by holding the principles in functional unity during moments that test the stability of moral orientation.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Coherence reveals that defensive action is not secured merely by the presence of principle but by the internal unity among principles as they operate under pressure. When Self-Preservation, Equality, and Reciprocity remain mutually regulating, the defender’s behaviour emerges as an expression of an ordered moral stance. When this unity breaks down—when one principle overwhelms the others or when evaluative contraction replaces relational openness—the action that follows loses its grounding in the moral architecture that justifies it. Coherence therefore serves as a critical safeguard against distortion, anchoring the defender’s orientation so that protective force remains connected to the structure of agency itself.

This principle prepares the ground for Congruence, where the question shifts from internal alignment to the fidelity with which action embodies its guiding orientation. Together, Coherence and Congruence bridge the naturalized moral foundations of defensive action and the normative responsibilities that arise from them, forming the conceptual pathway toward the legal principles examined in future articles.

Article Series
Part I: Introduction to the Principles of Defensive Ethics
Part II: Self-Preservation as the Frist Principle of Defensive Ethics
Part III: Equality as the Second Principle of Defensive Ethics
Part IV: Reciprocity as the Third Principle of Defensive Ethics
Part V: Coherence as the Fourth Principle of Defensive Ethics
Part VI: Congruence as the Fifth Principle of Defensive Ethics
Part VII: Integrating the Principles of Defensive Ethics
Part VIII: From Viability to Value: The Emergence of Moral Meaning

This article is part of the multi-part series The Five Principles of Defensive Ethics, which examines how the natural imperatives of survival, cooperation, and restraint evolve into ethical principles that regulate action under threat. Each installment explores one principle—Self-Preservation, Equality, Reciprocity, Coherence, and Congruence—as a distinct yet interdependent expression of moral normativity: the living standards that govern proportion, restraint, and purpose in defensive conduct. Together, the series establishes the moral architecture from which we derive the prescriptive structures of responsibility, obligation, and natural right, showing how the defense of life, when ethically ordered, becomes a conscious affirmation of agency and value.

 

 

About The Author

Nathan is the Managing Director and Chief Instructor at Northern Sage Kung Fu Academy, and Chief Representative of Luo Guang Yu Seven Star Praying Mantis in Canada and China. With over 25 years of experience living in China, he is deeply committed to passing on traditional martial arts in its most sincere form. As part of his passion Nathan regularly writes on related topics of self-defense, combat, health, philosophy, ethics, personal cultivation, and leadership.

 

 

Legal and Safety Disclaimer

The material contained in this publication is provided solely for educational and informational purposes. It presents philosophical and ethical analysis of self-defence and interpersonal violence and does not constitute legal advice, tactical instruction, or professional guidance of any kind. Laws governing self-defence vary widely by jurisdiction, and specific legal outcomes depend on circumstances that cannot be anticipated here.

No material in this publication should be relied upon to make real-world decisions regarding the use of force, personal safety, or risk management. Before acting in any situation involving potential harm, you should consult qualified legal professionals, law-enforcement authorities, and relevant experts.

The authors and publishers disclaim all liability for any actions taken or not taken based on the content of this publication. Any reliance you place on the material is strictly at your own risk.

 

 

End Notes:
[1] Karl Friston, “The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, no. 2 (2010): 127–138; Andy Clark, “Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, no. 3 (2013): 181–204.
[2] Fiery Cushman, “Action, Outcome, and Value,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 17, no. 3 (2013): 273–292; Michael Tomasello, “A Natural History of Human Morality,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38 (2015): e71.
[3] Lisa Feldman Barrett, “The Theory of Constructed Emotion,” Current Opinion in Psychology 3 (2015): 1–23.
[4] Elizabeth A. Phelps, “Emotion and Cognition: Insights from Studies of the Human Amygdala,” Annual Review of Psychology 57 (2006): 27–53; Bruce McEwen and Peter Gianaros, “Central Role of the Brain in Stress and Adaptation,” Journal of Neuroscience 31, no. 45 (2011): 15627–15634.
[5] Nathan Wright, The Natural Foundations of Agency and Self-Defence as the Operational Backbone of Moral Life (2025); Wright, Self-Defense as a Biological Imperative and the Natural Foundations of Autonomy (2025).
[6] Barrett, “Theory of Constructed Emotion,” 1–23; Phelps, “Emotion and Cognition,” 27–53.