Switch to: References

Citations of:

On the immorality of threatening

Ratio 24 (3):229-242 (2011)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Puzzle About Proportionality.David Alm - 2019 - Res Publica 25 (2):133-149.
    The paper addresses a puzzle about the proportionality requirement on self-defense due to L. Alexander. Indirectly the puzzle is also relevant to the proportionality requirement on punishment, insofar as the right to punish is derived from the right to self-defense. Alexander argues that there is no proportionality requirement on either self-defense or punishment, as long as the aggressor/offender has been forewarned of the risk of a disproportional response. To support his position Alexander appeals to some puzzle cases, challenging us to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Coercion.Scott Anderson - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • What Makes Threats Wrong?Niko Kolodny - 2017 - Analytic Philosophy 58 (2):87-118.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Enforcement Approach to Coercion.Scott A. Anderson - 2010 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 5 (1):1-31.
    This essay differentiates two approaches to understanding the concept of coercion, and argues for the relative merits of the one currently out of fashion. The approach currently dominant in the philosophical literature treats threats as essential to coercion, and understands coercion in terms of the way threats alter the costs and benefits of an agent’s actions; I call this the “pressure” approach. It has largely superseded the “enforcement approach,” which focuses on the powers and actions of the coercer rather than (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Claiming Responsibility for Action Under Duress.Carla Bagnoli - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (4):851-868.
    This paper argues that to understand the varieties of wrongs done in coercion, we should examine the dynamic normative relation that the coercer establishes with the coerced. The case rests on a critical examination of coercion by threat, which is proved irreducible to psychological inducement by overwhelming motives, obstruction of agency by impaired consent or deprivation of genuine choice. In contrast to physical coercion, coercion by threat requires the coercee’s participation in deliberation to succeed. For this kind of coercion to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark