There are two types of situations that justify an exception to the principle of respecting the personal sovereignty of others.
Impaired Judgement
There are situations when a person is in a state where he/she cannot be responsible for their personal sovereignty. Prominent examples:
- Children who don’t know yet how to control themselves so as not to hurt themselves or others
- A person who is under the influence of some chemicals (e.g. alcohol) that interfere with proper judgment
- A person who has a psychiatric illness.
In such situations, it may be justified for an appropriate person (such as a parent or a guardian) to take responsibility for the unable person and make decisions and actions for that person. This intervention is justified only as long as it is done for the benefit of the unable person’s wellbeing, and if refraining from such intervention would harm the person’s wellbeing.
Self Defense
Consider a situation in which the personal sovereignty of an innocent person is intentionally violated by others, and therefore the person’s wellbeing is harmed. In that case, it is justified for that person to act in self defense and to do whatever is necessary to stop this violation in order to protect his/her wellbeing, even if that means violating the personal sovereignty of the attackers.
For example, if a perpetrator threatens an innocent person’s life at the point of a gun, then it is justified for the threatened person to use whatever means necessary to stop this threat, and that may include using violence that infringes upon the attacker’s personal sovereignty. It is also justified for a third person, such as a police officer or a friend of the attached, to intervene on behalf of the attacked in order to help protect their wellbeing.
The attacker deliberately did not show respect for the other person’s sovereignty, and thereby forfeited his right for protection of his own personal sovereignty. He would not be justified in complaining that the threatened person violates the attacker’s personal sovereignty. The principle at play here is this:
Toleration towards others does not mean tolerating intolerance – that would be nonsensical.
Of course, there are many subtleties that may be involved here (such as intentional vs. unintentional action, defense using means that are reasonable and proportional to the magnitude of the threat rather than using excessive force, acting out of caution vs. vengeance, etc.), and we may elaborate on these later.