This question came in anonymously by email: "Why is it our responsibility to not cause harm to the attacker? In launching the attack, hasn't the attacker voluntarily taken on the risk of harm to himself?"

We should look at this from several angles. First let us look at the notion of taking responsibility. A doctor takes responsibility to heal patients. There are doctors who work in prisons, even on death row. They take responsibility to heal patients immediately prior to their execution. Is that wrong, or is that a good thing for them to do. (While I understand this to be controversial in this country, executing a murderer who is currently incarcerated and not a danger to society, unable to plan or participate in future murders, is clearly unethical. Thus, the executors are woefully wrong). A murderer in this country clearly takes on the risk of being killed, but the doctors whose job it is to treat them is performing important work, benefitting himself and society at large.

If someone breaks into your home with an intent to kill, then you benefit yourself and them if you take responsibility to minimize the harm to them. In I believe all religions, for example, they teach "love thine enemy" and other similar ideas. You should respond to a would be murderer with an intent to protect and take care of them, as that is best for both of you.

Then we should look at this from a martial angle. What happens when you try to protect someone who wants to kill you? First, they are more likely to rethink their objectives and decide to let you be. If that does not work, your technique will tend to be more effective. If you don't extirpate from its root the selfish notion, "well he wants to hurt me so why should I help him, I'll just hurt him badly to teach him a lesson," then this thought process severs the natural power that flows through your body. Your roots, bringing power from the ground are cut off. Your shoulders rise, you become fearful that he will get you before you get him. You become clouded and cannot perceive his attack through your own fears. "Will he strike this way or that?" The mind begins calculating what it can do for self preservation tactically. If the attacker sees your fears, he can play you like a puppet. Knowing that you will do the best for this other person will bring a sense of calm, so that you can see his fears instead. To the extent the attacker receives an unconscious message that you wish them no harm, their interest in resisting your technique will diminish. All of this plays to your favor martially.

However, make no mistake. I do not advocate hugs and kisses for someone intent upon killing you. Someone such as that is certainly very thick with malice. Instead of thinking in terms of harming them, we should think in terms of communicating. What they are trying to do is harmful to you, but it is also very harmful to them. To the extent they succeed, they become a murderer. You must be firm and communicate that this course of action is detrimental to them. Pain is often a motivating factor in accomplishing this goal. But when inflicting pain, we only inflict that which is necessary to communicate the point, wishing no further harm to the attacker. When the message has been received and the warning heeded, further damage is discontinued.

There are circumstances where it is appropriate to kill an attacker. For further reference, read the lower segments of www.scarsdaleaikido.com/saotome.html.

To be continued...

Continued:

Now, when viewed from the vantage point of the attacker, yes, they certainly do take on the risk of harm to themselves. That is why, in caring for them, it is so important to insure that you communicate effectively that they never place themselves in such a precarious situation again. However, for your martial art to be most effective, you should a responsible attitude towards them, thus avoiding such conflicts and minimizing harm when they do occur. You will benefit most from this approach, as will society at large. The initial panic reaction to forget them and just take care of yourself is more likely to get you killed than them. However, when in the heat of battle, as a beginner, you can only do your best. Your responsibility is not to be successfuly, but to try your best.

"However, the point of the attack, again, is not to harm, but to control."
It seems that controlling someone - since it's done against the other's will - is a form of harm. While I understand that martially controlling is less harmful than inflicting physical damage, how does aikido view control outside of martial situations - can it be considered helpful? Can't it be considered a form of manipulation?

If you control someone in an artificial manner, that is harmful to them. The fact that you prevent them from say killing you is a greater good than the harm you cause them. All this is true.

All this is also not Aikido. Artificially controling someone is based on the notion that "I am here and you are there and I will enforce my will upon you." There is a concept of I which is not accurate, a concept of you, which is not accurate, and a concept of a particular set of circumstances one wishes to enforce, which again is not accurate. This is harmful to the attacker and also far less effective from a martial standpoint.

In aikido, we do not operate with an artificial approach such as this. The actual meaning of the term "control the attacker" is different here. There is no concept of this "I" and no concept of this "you" and further no concept of the set of circumstances which one wishes to fulfill. The activity is natural and reflexive, like sparks flying off when striking flint. You feel compassion and concern for the attacker. If they wish to kill me, I do not become confused and give them what they wish. Instead, I understand them on a deeper level. If they kill me, they become a murderer. If caught in this country, they may experience many years of prison. In addition, depending upon one's beliefs, after such an execution, they may spend a prolonged period in a warm climate. This is very bad for them and not what they wish. I therefore act immediately on their behalf by preventing their actions from successfully killing me. Again, it is simply reflexive.

Take a different example. Say I own a work of art, and someone is genuinely drawn to it in a strong manner. If they have a strong desire for the artwork and I judge it best for them to have it, even if I also enjoy the same artwork, I may simply give it to them with the same reflexiveness as described above. The frame of mind is the same, giving people what they need reflexively, but the actions are opposite. In one instance I pin someone to the ground and cause pain. In another instant, I give someone a valuable work of art. The difference in the action is determined by the differing needs of the people involved...