Equality as the Second Principle of Defensive Ethics

Table of Content
1. Introduction
2. Principle of Equality
3. Conclusion

1. INTRODUCTION

Every defensive encounter unfolds within a shared moral field, where each person stands as a being capable of acting, choosing, and being harmed. To understand what makes defensive action ethically legitimate, one must see that the conditions that sustain one’s own agency—bodily integrity, psychological stability, freedom from coercion, and social recognition—are not private possessions but features of a common human architecture. Equality names this structural fact.

This article introduces Equality as the second principle of Defensive Ethics: the recognition that all persons inhabit the same moral standing and therefore hold parallel claims to preservation. It examines how a biological symmetry of vulnerability becomes an ethical commitment to mutual regard, and why violations of equality give interpersonal violence its distinctive moral gravity by distorting the shared conditions that moral life requires.

2. PRINCIPLE OF EQUALTY

Equality is the second principle of Defensive Ethics because it extends the logic of Self-Preservation beyond the individual and into the relational field where moral life unfolds. In biological systems, stability arises through proportionality—dynamic balance among interacting parts that share the same conditions for continued existence. Organisms coexist within networks of mutual dependence, where none can long sustain itself by undermining the conditions that sustain others.[1] This ecological symmetry forms the natural foundation of equality: all living beings are bound by the same structural requirements for viability and by the same vulnerabilities that threaten them.

From structure to reflection. Human agency expresses this symmetry in reflective form. The enabling conditions that sustain one’s capacity to act—bodily integrity, psychological stability, freedom from coercion, and social recognition—are shared by all persons. These conditions constitute the architecture of the Self–Other field introduced in Natural Foundations of Agency: the relational structure within which moral awareness and responsibility arise.[2] To affirm one’s own agency as worthy of protection is, by the same structural logic, to recognize that others stand within the same moral field. Equality therefore begins as an ontological symmetry—rooted in the shared architecture of agency—before maturing into an ethical commitment.

Emergence of respect. As this recognition deepens, equality acquires moral significance. Awareness of shared structure, vulnerability, and capacity reveals that others possess the same faculties for perception, intention, and response that define oneself.[3] This understanding transforms biological symmetry into ethical regard. Respect emerges as the outward expression of equality: the acknowledgment that others’ enabling conditions carry the same claim to protection as one’s own. Respect thus stands as the relational counterpart to self-respect—the attitude of symmetrical standing and mutual moral acknowledgment through which moral life becomes reciprocal rather than unilateral.[4]

Denial through violence. Interpersonal violence represents the collapse of equality. When an aggressor seeks to dominate, coerce, or harm another, the act negates symmetrical standing. The victim is objectified—treated as a means to control rather than as an agent to be engaged. This reduction of a person to an instrument of will gives interpersonal violence its distinctive moral gravity. It is not merely the infliction of harm but a refusal of mutual recognition—the moral grammar upon which ethical life depends. [5] Philosophers of moral harm have shown that wrongful violence degrades agency by undermining agency and withholding recognition, thereby dissolving the relational symmetry that sustains moral order.[6]

Restoration through defense. Defensive action becomes justified when an aggressor attempts to suspend equality. To defend oneself is to reassert the moral fact that all persons share the same entitlement to preserve their enabling conditions.[7] Yet defensive force must remain restorative rather than retaliatory, seeking to reestablish the equilibrium that violence has disturbed. Contemporary theories of self-defense affirm this standard: defensive force is warranted only to the extent that it restores the agency conditions the aggressor has violated.[8]

Boundaries of legitimacy. This distinction defines both the justification and the limits of defensive force. Equality legitimizes protection while holding it within moral boundaries. Defensive conduct remains credible only when it aims to restore balance and reaffirm the shared standing that violence seeks to destroy. Guided by equality, defense preserves integrity across the Self–Other field, even amid threat.[9]

Regulative function. Within Defensive Ethics, equality serves as the stabilizing orientation that keeps Self-Preservation within legitimate limits. It prevents defensive action from collapsing into opportunism or disregard for another’s agency. Equality affirms that one may protect oneself against intentional threat but must do so in ways that respect the equal standing of others.[10] In this way, it transforms survival-driven impulse into moral regard, aligning protection with the recognition that others possess parallel claims to preservation.

Equality therefore establishes the relational framework within which all defensive action must take place. It ensures that defense is not a unilateral assertion of will but a practice grounded in mutual standing and respect.[11] By transforming the preservation of one’s own life into acknowledgment of others’ equal commitment to preserve theirs, equality prevents the defender from reproducing the aggressor’s error.

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Equality reveals that the moral stakes of violence extend beyond physical injury to the deeper structures that make persons agents among one another. When harm, coercion or domination occurs, it is this shared standing that is violated—the symmetry upon which recognition, responsibility, and moral dialogue depend. Defensive action is ethically grounded when it works to re-establish that symmetry and loses legitimacy when it disregards the equal standing it seeks to protect. By binding protection to the parallel claims others hold, Equality ensures that defense does not devolve into retaliation or opportunism but remains anchored in the mutual regard that sustains moral life. As a principle, it secures the moral field in which Self-Preservation can be exercised without collapsing into domination. With this grounding in place, the framework now turns naturally to Reciprocity, which governs how force, restraint, and response are proportioned within the unfolding dynamics of a defensive encounter.

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.

 

 

End Notes:
[1] Evan Thompson, Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 63–82; Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, The Tree of Knowledge (Boston: Shambhala, 1992), 116–19; Kim Sterelny, “Cooperation, Culture, and Conflict,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67, no. 1 (2016): 31–58.
[2] Wright, Natural Foundations of Agency and Self-Defence, 12–17; Wright, The World As It Is and the Realities of Violence (Calgary: Northern Sage Kung Fu Academy, 2025), 1–4, 15–19.
[3] Axel Honneth, “Recognition as Ideology,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 34, no. 2 (2008): 177–196; Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), 92–109.
[4] Darwall, “Second-Person Standpoint,” 200–210; Michael Rosen, Dignity: Its History and Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 13–28.
[5] Seana Shiffrin, “Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm,” Legal Theory 5 (1999): 123–126; Axel Honneth, “Recognition as Ideology,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 34, no. 2 (2008): 180–187.
[6] Dutton, Donald G., and Susan L. Painter. “The Battered Woman Syndrome: Effects of Severity and Intermittency of Abuse.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 53, no. 4 (1983): 614–622.
[7] Nathan Wright, The Natural Foundations of Agency and Self-Defence as the Operational Backbone of Moral Life (Calgary: Northern Sage Kung Fu Academy, 2025), 14–17.
[8] Jeff McMahan, “Self-Defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker,” Ethics 104, no. 2 (1994): 255–258; Jonathan Quong, “Proportionality, Liability, and Defensive Harm,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 43, no. 2 (2015): 150–162.
[9] Saba Bazargan-Forward, “Complicity and Defensive Liability,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 45, no. 1 (2017): 35–39; T. M. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 88–90.
[10] Jeff McMahan, “Self-Defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker,” Ethics 104, no. 2 (1994): 252–290.
[11] T. M. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 85–90.

 

 

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.