Congruence as the Fifth Principle of Defensive Ethics

 

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

1. INTRODUCTION

Congruence is the fifth principle of Defensive Ethics and the final structure that stabilizes the meaning of defensive action. It addresses a dimension of moral life often overlooked: the fidelity between one’s evaluative intentions and the outward form of one’s behaviour under threat. Initial defensive responses may arise from sound protective orientation, yet the ethical weight of an encounter depends on how action is carried forward as conditions shift. Congruence clarifies this trajectory. It examines whether the defender’s movement continues to express the purpose that justified it, or whether emotion, momentum, or confusion distort its course. As a natural extension of Self-Preservation, Equality, Reciprocity, and Coherence, Congruence ensures that defensive action remains an authentic expression of the moral commitments the defender claims to uphold. Through this lens, we can assess how protective force either preserves or fractures the enabling conditions of agency.

2. PRINCIPLE OF CONGRUENCE

Congruence is the fifth and culminating principle of Defensive Ethics because it ensures that moral understanding retains fidelity in action. Whereas Coherence internally aligns perception, judgment, and emotion into an ordered moral orientation, Congruence secures alignment between this internal order and its outward expression in action. In biological systems, adaptive success depends on fidelity between internal states and external behavior: organisms regulate themselves through predictive processes that match appraisal, intention, and action to environmental demand. [1] When these loops fall out of alignment—when behavior fails to reflect internal need or situational relevance—maladaptation follows. Congruence, in this natural sense, is the functional correspondence between what a system is organized to do and what it actually does.[2]

From function to moral fidelity. Human agency inherits this architecture, but reflection transforms it into a moral requirement. Congruence in moral life is the alignment between what one judges to be right, what one intends to do, and what one ultimately enacts.[3] It represents the unity of motive, evaluation, and behavior that constitutes an agent’s moral identity.[4] A person may possess clarity of values and stable intentions, yet without congruent action those commitments remain untested. Congruence therefore renders moral integrity publicly legible: it demonstrates that one’s principles exert normative force even under pressure.[5]

Vulnerability under threat. This fidelity becomes especially significant in conditions of danger. Interpersonal violence introduces physiological and cognitive volatility—accelerated arousal, narrowed attention, and disrupted working memory—each increasing the risk of fracture between judgment, intention, and action.[6] Under such conditions, an agent may judge one thing, feel another, and do a third. Congruence counteracts fragmentation by holding defensive conduct to the moral structure that gives it meaning. [7] It ensures that protective action remains aligned with the conditions of the encounter rather than drifting into impulse or excess, and that it continues to serve the stabilizing purpose that preservation requires. When congruence fails, the distinction between protection and coercion loses clarity, and defensive action can no longer be understood as an expression of agency’s preservation.[8]

Consequences and accountability. Congruence also extends moral evaluation beyond intention to consequence. Because human action reverberates through a relational field, the ethical meaning of a defensive act cannot be isolated from its foreseeable effects.[9] A defender may intend to preserve agency, yet if their response foreseeably undermines the enabling conditions of others—bystanders, dependents, or the wider moral community—the act departs from the principles that justify the use of force. Congruence therefore integrates intention with responsible outcome-awareness: moral commitment must extend beyond what one means to do and include what one’s actions predictably bring about.[10]

Guarding against objectification. Congruence protects against the subtle slide into objectification—the treatment of others as instruments rather than agents—by demanding that even under threat, one’s conduct remain oriented toward restoration rather than domination. It resists the impulse to treat harm as self-justifying and requires that one’s actions stay calibrated to the structural conditions one is trying to restore. In this way, congruence preserves the humanity of both defender and aggressor, maintaining the ethical difference between protection and destruction.

Unifying role within Defensive Ethics. Within the larger framework, Congruence binds the architecture of principles into lived unity. Self-Preservation identifies what must be protected; Equality affirms the shared standing of all persons; Reciprocity regulates interaction through calibrated responsiveness; and Coherence maintains internal alignment and inter-principle order. Congruence brings these orientations into expression, ensuring that defensive conduct embodies the same moral structure that grounds its legitimacy. When maintained, congruence transforms moments of threat into expressions of moral clarity. When absent, it collapses the distinction between preservation and violation.[11]

Process integrity. Congruence is measured by the quality of process fidelity—the disciplined effort to act in accordance with justified aims even when conditions are uncertain. Moral outcomes often fall outside one’s control, yet moral orientation can still be held steady. Through this discipline, Congruence strengthens trust in moral agency itself: the link between judgment and action remains intact, and ethical intention continues to guide conduct even when fear or anger rise.

Congruence thus completes the architecture of Defensive Ethics. It closes the gap between inward commitment and outward behavior, linking what a defender knows and affirms to what a defender does. In doing so, it secures the passage from moral understanding to moral realization and prepares the ground for exploring future articles on Navigating Defensive Principles—which will examine how agents maintain dynamic balance among all five principles as moral life unfolds in real time.[12]

3. CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CONGRUENCE

Congruence becomes most visible when defensive action must be carried through under pressure—moments in which evaluation turns into physical movement and the defender’s intentions must be borne faithfully into the world. While Coherence secures the alignment of perception, judgment, and intention within the agent, Congruence concerns the fidelity between those internal orientations and the outward form of the action itself. It examines whether behaviour expresses the justificatory structure established by the earlier principles or whether it drifts into excess, domination, or distortion once force is initiated.

Defensive encounters are dynamic. What begins as a justified protective response can quickly shift as the threat changes, collapses, or resolves. Congruence is the principle that keeps action tethered to these shifts. It requires that movement remain calibrated to what Self-Preservation identifies as endangered, that it continue to acknowledge the standing Equality recognizes, and that it maintain the relational discipline Reciprocity demands. When these conditions evolve, the form of action must evolve with them; when they dissolve, the action must release.

For this reason, case studies are essential. They reveal how Congruence operates not as an abstract criterion but as an ongoing discipline applied through the arc of an encounter. A congruent act is one that remains responsive to emergent conditions and true to the reasons that justified its initiation. A violation of Congruence occurs when force continues after its protective purpose has been fulfilled, or when the form of action departs from the moral structure that granted it legitimacy.

The following case studies illustrate this distinction. The first presents a defensive moment in which action remains aligned with the defender’s evaluative commitments across the unfolding encounter. The second shows how congruence fails when conduct drifts beyond restoration and into forms of harm that no longer track the structural conditions of agency. Together, they clarify how Congruence stabilizes the ethical meaning of defensive force by ensuring that behaviour remains an authentic expression of the defender’s moral stance rather than a product of emotional acceleration or opportunistic dominance.

Case Study I: Alignment of Coherence.

A man named Aaron is locking his bicycle outside a transit station at dusk. As he crouches to secure the back wheel, a stranger approaches from the side with quick, agitated steps. The stranger’s voice is raised, his gestures abrupt, and his trajectory closes space faster than Aaron can interpret clearly. The combination of speed, tone, and proximity tightens Aaron’s attention. His body shifts into readiness as Self-Preservation activates, framing the moment as potentially hazardous.

The stranger reaches out abruptly and grabs Aaron’s shoulder. The contact is firm and directed toward pulling him upward from his crouched position. Aaron pivots sharply, raising his forearm to break the grip. The movement frees his shoulder and re-establishes a functional boundary. He steps to his left to widen space and positions himself at an angle that gives him clearer visibility and room to move.

The stranger’s momentum stalls. His hands drop slightly. His breathing remains fast, but his stance softens. From this new distance, Aaron can see more of the man’s face—worried, strained, disoriented. The stranger stammers that someone nearby had been threatening him and he thought Aaron was the same person. His voice trembles. The confrontation begins to unravel.

Aaron feels the physiological heat of the moment still coursing through him, but his internal orientation shifts. The structural conditions of threat that justified the defensive movement have begun to dissolve. Aaron does not advance, strike, or attempt to restrain the man. He maintains only the distance required to assess the remaining cues. After a brief second, the stranger’s posture becomes fully non-threatening. His arms drop to his sides. His breathing slows. The relational field stabilizes.

Aaron lowers his hands and signals that he understands the confusion. He keeps the interaction brief, maintains awareness of his surroundings, and then disengages—returning to his bicycle and leaving the scene without further confrontation. The moment ends where defensive purpose ends.

Expanded Analysis

This scenario demonstrates how Congruence functions as the principle that ensures defensive action remains faithful to the moral structure that justifies it. Aaron’s initial movement is a clear expression of Self-Preservation: the stranger’s rapid approach, abrupt contact, and directional pull threaten the structural conditions of agency—bodily integrity, freedom of movement, and situational control. Aaron responds with calibrated force that restores those conditions without degrading the other’s standing.

The coherence of this initiation is necessary, but Congruence concerns the next phase: what happens after the moment of justification. Defensive action is not a single gesture; it is a short arc of behaviour that must remain aligned with the defender’s evaluative stance as the encounter evolves. Aaron embodies this discipline. Once he frees himself and re-establishes space, he does not let the physiological acceleration of the moment define the trajectory of his conduct. He pauses, assesses, and allows new information to enter his frame.

The shift in the stranger’s cues is morally significant. His posture softens, his hands lower, and his explanation becomes legible. Congruence requires the defender to remain sensitive to these developments. When the threat dissolves, defensive force loses its grounding. Aaron’s behaviour reflects this structural awareness: his orientation relaxes proportionally to the dissolving tension, and he refrains from extending force beyond the moment in which it served a restorative function.

This responsiveness demonstrates the essence of Congruence: the fidelity between intention and execution across time. Aaron’s internal purpose—to restore his capacity for agency—is matched by the outward form of his actions. He uses only what is needed to break the grip and create space, then allows the encounter to settle as soon as conditions allow. He does not escalate, retaliate, or pursue. His protective movement tracks the evolving relational field, remaining tethered to the principle that justified it.

Congruence also becomes visible in the restraint he maintains after the justification dissolves. Many violations of defensive ethics arise not from the first act but from the inability to release defensive posture once fear or anger takes hold. Aaron’s ability to transition out of activation reflects an internal steadiness that preserves moral integrity even when adrenaline is high. His conduct honours both the restoration of his own agency and the recognition of the stranger’s standing once the moment of threat ends.

Taken together, these elements show why Aaron’s behaviour exemplifies Congruence. His actions are not shaped by impulse or emotional acceleration. They reflect a settled evaluative orientation that remains intact through the arc of the encounter. The form, duration, and conclusion of his defensive movement remain aligned with the structural conditions that granted it legitimacy. This disciplined fidelity is the core of Congruence: the capacity to let action remain an authentic expression of one’s justified aims rather than a drift into excess or domination.

What this case shows

• Alignment across the arc of action: Aaron’s defensive movement continues to express the same evaluative commitments that justified its initiation.
• Calibration to the evolving relational field: As the stranger’s cues shift from intrusive to non-threatening, Aaron’s posture adapts accordingly.
• Restoration as the guiding purpose: His actions serve to re-establish the structural conditions of agency without extending force beyond that aim.
• Release of defensive posture: Once the threat dissolves, Aaron allows the moment to settle, demonstrating the capacity to deactivate rather than escalate.
• Fidelity between intention and execution: His behaviour remains consistent with his protective purpose, avoiding drift into retaliation, dominance, or unnecessary harm.
• Preservation of moral integrity: The encounter ends with his safety restored and without degrading the standing of the other once the conditions justified for defense are no longer present.

Case Study II: Violation of Coherence

Jordan is walking home at twilight when he hears a shout behind him. A man he does not recognize is striding quickly in his direction, face tense, one arm extended as if trying to flag him down. Jordan turns, startled, and steps back. The stranger continues forward at speed and reaches toward him, attempting to grab his jacket. The suddenness of the gesture, the closing distance, and the stranger’s intensity compress Jordan’s ability to interpret intent. His protective system engages with clarity.

He sidesteps, strikes the reaching arm with an open palm, and breaks contact. The movement is effective. The stranger recoils, stumbling slightly. Jordan uses this moment to widen space, shifting to a position where he can see the stranger’s hands and maintain the freedom to move in any direction. His breathing is elevated but steady.

The encounter could end here. The stranger’s posture collapses into confusion rather than pursuit. His hands rise in apology, and he begins to explain that he thought Jordan was someone else—someone who had taken his bag inside the transit station moments earlier. His voice shakes. From this distance, Jordan can see the man is frightened, disoriented, and no longer advancing.

Yet Jordan’s internal state does not adjust to these cues. The defensive activation that began as protection solidifies into a posture of dominance. Instead of letting the moment settle, he steps toward the stranger and demands that he “stay back.” His voice rises. The stranger continues to apologize and backs away, but Jordan closes the distance again, jabbing a finger toward his chest and shouting that “people need to learn.”

The relational field has reversed. The stranger is no longer the one imposing on Jordan’s agency. Jordan has become the destabilizing force. As the man retreats further, Jordan reaches out, grabs the front of his shirt, and shoves him against a parked car. The stranger flinches, hands raised, offering no resistance.

The encounter ends only when two bystanders intervene and pull Jordan away. His breathing is still fast, his posture rigid, his attention locked onto the stranger even as others place themselves between them. The moment of legitimate defense has long passed; what remains is a continuation shaped by emotion rather than the structural conditions that once justified action.

Expanded Analysis

This scenario illustrates a clear violation of Congruence—the principle that ensures defensive action remains aligned with the evaluative structure that gives it moral coherence. Jordan’s initial movement arises from sound protective orientation. The stranger’s rapid approach, physical reach, and intrusive proximity compromise Jordan’s ability to maintain control of his own movement and situational stability. His protective strike and repositioning restore those capacities, re-establishing the basic conditions necessary for agency.

The violation emerges in what follows. Congruence demands that once the defender has re-established agency and the threat begins to dissolve, action must recalibrate accordingly. Jordan’s internal posture does not shift with the evolving conditions. The stranger’s cues change visibly: his hands lower, his stance softens, and his explanation becomes legible. These signals indicate that the relational field is re-stabilizing. Jordan’s failure to recognize this shift reveals a disconnect between perception, intention, and execution—the very fragmentation Congruence is designed to prevent.

The drift in Jordan’s behaviour stems from a displacement in his evaluative center. Instead of reorienting to the diminished threat, he continues to act from the physiological and emotional acceleration of the initial moment. The defensive purpose becomes entangled with agitation, and the arc of action no longer tracks the conditions of the encounter. This is the hallmark of a violation: the form and continuation of force no longer express the structure of Self-Preservation but emerge from inertia, anger, or a need to assert control.

The transition from protection to domination becomes clear when Jordan moves toward the stranger after the threat has ended. His actions no longer safeguard agency; they constrain it. The shove against the car illustrates this reversal with particular clarity. In that moment, Jordan is not restoring the integrity of the relational field. He is disrupting it, imposing force on someone whose cues now communicate confusion, apology, and withdrawal.

Congruence also governs the capacity to release defensive activation. Jordan’s inability to disengage—even as bystanders intervene—shows how moral orientation can collapse under the inertia of heightened arousal. Defense becomes distorted when the body’s momentum overrides the mind’s evaluative structure. The protective aim dissolves, replaced by behaviour unmoored from the very principles that once justified the initial act.

This case demonstrates that moral failure in defensive contexts often arises after the legitimate act. The initial response may align with the principles of Defensive Ethics, yet the continuation of force can fall out of step with the evolving encounter. When action ceases to reflect the structural conditions of agency and instead expresses emotional residue, defensive force loses its grounding. This is the essence of incongruence: behaviour that no longer mirrors the evaluative commitments the defender claims to uphold.

What this case shows

• Continuity matters: Defensive legitimacy is sustained only when the arc of action remains aligned with the justificatory structure that initiated it.
• Failure to recalibrate: Jordan’s posture does not shift as the threat dissolves, revealing the loss of congruent responsiveness.
• Signals of withdrawal require recognition: The stranger’s apology, softening stance, and retreat indicate that the structural conditions have changed.
• Transition from protection to coercion: Jordan’s advance, shouting, and final shove impose force on someone who no longer constrains his agency.
• Emotional inertia can distort defense: Heightened arousal continues to shape Jordan’s actions even after safety has been restored.
• Betrayal of evaluative structure: His conduct no longer expresses Self-Preservation shaped by Equality and Reciprocity; it fragments into domination.
• Congruence as moral boundary: The case shows how defensive action loses its integrity when fidelity between intention and execution is not maintained across time

These case studies reveal how Congruence governs the moral arc of defensive action. Protective movement must remain anchored to the conditions that first call it forth and responsive to the changes that follow. When action reflects this fidelity, the defender preserves both personal integrity and the relational field in which agency is shared. When fidelity is lost, force drifts into forms of harm that no longer express a protective purpose. Congruence is the discipline that sustains this continuity across time.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Congruence brings Defensive Ethics to completion by safeguarding the continuity between moral intention and the lived shape of defensive action. It reminds the defender that justification emerges across a moving horizon shaped by the evolving conditions of an encounter. When actions stay aligned with this horizon, defensive force maintains its grounding in the preservation of agency and relational stability. When alignment fades, force becomes unmoored from the structure that once gave it meaning. Congruence therefore functions as both an ethical boundary and an ethical discipline—a commitment to let protective purpose guide each phase of action until the moment of threat dissolves. In this steadiness, the defender affirms the moral architecture that makes ethical self-defense possible.

 

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; Michael L. Platt and James K. Rilling, “Neural Mechanisms for Social Cooperation,” Neuron 35, no. 5 (2002): 763–764.
[2] Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens (New York: Harcourt, 1999), 70–93.
[3] Christine M. Korsgaard, Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 1–23.
[4] Harry Frankfurt, “Identification and Wholeheartedness,” in The Importance of What We Care About (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 159–176; Shaun Gallagher, “The Natural Philosophy of Agency,” Philosophical Topics 44, no. 2 (2016): 45–68; Fiery Cushman, “Rationalization Is Rational,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 43 (2020): E28.
[5] Michael Bratman, Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 1–34.
[6] Bruce McEwen and John C. Wingfield, “The Concept of Allostasis in Biology and Biomedicine,” Hormones and Behavior 43, no. 1 (2003): 2–15.
[7] Seth Lazar, “Responsibility, Risk, and Killing in Self-Defense,” Ethics 119, no. 4 (2009): 699–728; Jonathan Quong, “Proportionality, Liability, and Defensive Harm,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 43, no. 2 (2015): 144–175.
[8] Jeff McMahan, “Self-Defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker,” Ethics 104, no. 2 (1994): 252–290.
[9] T. M. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 85–113.
[10] Lisa Feldman Barrett and W. Kyle Simmons, “Interoceptive Predictions in the Brain,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16 (2015): 419–429.
[11] Jonathan Quong, “Proportionality, Liability, and Defensive Harm,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 43, no. 2 (2015): 144–175; Nathan Wright, The Natural Foundations of Agency and Self-Defence as the Operational Backbone of Moral Life (Northern Sage Kung Fu Academy, 2025), 18–24; Wright, The World As It Is and the Realities of Violence (Northern Sage Kung Fu Academy, 2025), 20–26.
[12] Christine M. Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 90–123.