It is here that the _right of self-defense_ comes in. He who is violently attacked, has the right to oppose to violence just as much strength as there is employed against him. Otherwise, in allowing himself to be knocked down by strength, he would consent to the abasement, to the suppression of his own personality; he would in some respect be the accomplice of the violence he is made to suffer. Some Christian sects, straining this point, go so far as to condemn absolutely the right of self-defense; they do not see that this would infallibly bring with it the triumph of brute force, and the suppression of all justice. Such sects may, to a certain extent, manage to exist in civilized societies; but the principle is self-destructive, since not to resist violence is in some respect to be its accomplice. Yet, whilst admitting the right of self-defense, it is necessary to recognize its limits. "This agent," says M. Renouvier, "whom the right of self-defense treats as a brute, this being is a man, nevertheless, or has been one, or may become such. Hence the doctrine of conscience is to admit this right only when necessary, and not beyond what is necessary." (_Moral Science_, Ch. LVI.) This is, to begin with, a natural consequence of the duties towards one's self, since it is already a surrender of one's dignity to be obliged to act in the capacity of a physical agent, and renounce one's character of a moral person; it is also a duty towards humanity in general, which is represented by every man, even the most violent and the most uncultivated. =26. Problems.=--The right of legitimate self-defense gives rise to a certain number of problems relative to the law of homicide. M. Jules Simon[17] reduces them to five: homicide in case of self-defense, penalty of death, political assassination, duel, and war. In the first case it is implied in what precedes, that legitimate self-defense may go so far as to deprive another man of life; but only in case of absolute necessity. There remain the four other cases, which are not all of the same order. =27. The penalty of death.=--The penalty of death in these days has been very much contested, and several States have tried to abolish it.[18] The following arguments are brought to bear against it: 1. _The inviolability of human life._--The State, it is said, should not give the example of what it proscribes and punishes. Now, it punishes homicide; then it should not itself commit homicide. 2. The possible _mistakes_, which in all other cases can be corrected, but which in this case alone are irreparable. 3. _Experience_, which, it is said, tells against it in certain countries by proving that the number of crimes has not been increased by the suppression of the penalty of death. 4. Finally, the _refinement of manners_, which can no longer bear the idea of capital punishment. No one of these arguments is wholly decisive.