If you are physically attacked, the rules of civil society allow you to protest and defend yourself. For instance, if someone menaces you, and you are able, warn them off; if they strike you, you might strike back, or flee. (You are not obligated to display defensive behaviors if you can flee.)

You aren't required to be nice to the attacker, or stand there without a defensive effort. On the other hand, there are limits to how much physical response you can make. In some places, you would not be out of line if you pulled out your gun and shot them to protect your "honor". In other places, you would be subject to arrest for manslaughter or murder if you killed someone for insulting you.

Where I come from, the minimum necessary response is in order. If you are insulted, no response is required. If you are threatened or attacked physically, no more physical response that is necessary to protect yourself is proper. Deadly violence would be proper ONLY if you were threatened with deadly violence (like with a gun, a baseball bat, a knife...) and you could not flee.

Welcome to Philosophy Forum.

Yes. You can turn the other cheek for the attacker to slap that one too.

At the homeless shelter, the number one rule is to keep your distance. The second rule is to attempt to defuse the problem. Hopefully, this begins before someone physically attacks someone.

My granddaughter disarms males with knives by being sweet. I am concerned that her self-defense training is horribly inadequate. Proper self-defense training means helping an attacker to the floor rather than striking the attacker or possibly putting someone into a hold and calling for help. She does not have that training.

How men and women handle an attack will be different because people respond to men and women differently and the average woman is not as strong as a man. Having a good relationship helps. Having recognized authority and the ability to put someone out in the cold and prevent them returning is helpful.
We are dealing with some pretty serious mental cases because of drugs or schizophrenia and we are responsible for protecting everyone. It is kind of like dealing with children. We don't start swinging on people as children would do, but attempt to calm them down or get them out of the shelter.

This question arose during a discussion with my wife about the morality of being civil. I took a moral absolutist approach to it, stating it is never morally justified to act uncivil. She then asked me a question, from a utilitarian perspective, she asked "what if someone was attacking one of our kids? Would it not be morally justified to defend them?" Obviously, I would defend them, but I still hold to my original belief of moral absolutism. This question has me stumped...

I don’t believe you are stumped as to what to do if someone was attacking your kids. I have no doubt you would defend them. The question, rather, is what is the overarching principle that should direct our actions?

For me it is the Golden Rule, but when it comes to self-defense I go with a deontological approach. I can’t rationally will a universal law where people should turn the other cheek when children (or oneself for that matter) are physically attacked.

Is it possible to have a civil response to being physically attacked? If not then is it not impossible to say someone acted uncivil when being attacked? — Medicp251

The rules of civility do not require that one commit suicide and fall on their sword when confronted with an attack. You have the right to scratch, claw, and maim if it means your survival.

A more topical and perhaps complicated question is whether one is required to civilly respond to non-physical attacks, when the attack is against some closely held belief. Such has arisen in the American political climate where Hillary Clinton said, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." That asks the question of when incivility is permissible even absent physical attack.

And so do the same rules apply with regard to when we may be uncivil in physical attacks as non-physical?

I try to turn the other cheek when confronted with non-physical attacks. That’s how I would want to be treated when I screw up and act uncivilly socially. So for me it is a combination of the Golden Rule and deontology.

This subject reminds me of something that likewise hits very close to home, given the times we live in: to be tolerant toward intolerance is to eliminate tolerance from society. A complex issue to me.

As to civility when attacked, two quotes that come to mind which I find merit in as ideals to be aspired toward:

“A gentleman [i.e. a civil person] will walk but never run” … From a song by Sting: “Englishmen in New York”. Walking away from a conflict to me implies self-control that is also conveyed to the uncivil attacker, thereby helping to teach the attacker that their aggression was futile in its intentions. So, ok, running is sometimes the best defense, yet in context of the quote, becoming scared in so doing and conveying this fear to the attacker only teaches the attacker that their methods of incivility work … so it reinforces their unjustified aggression.

On the other end of the spectrum, a paraphrase from some likely important person that I can’t now recall:

“If you must kill [to which I’d add: in any way harm] someone, be polite about it.” By “must” I take it that it’s for some overall impartial good—such as that of preventing innocent lives from being killed/harmed by some uncivil individual. Attacking the attacker of one’s children in self-defense would certainly be a good example. By “being polite” I see it as not taking any pleasure form it (for there is guilt involved), not gloating about it, not being willingly cruel, etc. I’m here reminded, for example, of some soldiers who urinated in laughter upon the carcasses of those they killed and then boasted about so doing—this being an impolite/uncivil behavior for the given context of war. And it certainly doesn’t help out the political issues involved.