Switch to: References

Citations of:

Why Not Forfeiture?

In Helen Frowe and Gerald Lang (ed.), How We Fight: Ethics in War. Oxford University Press. pp. 38-61 (2014)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The legitimate targets of political disobedience.Chong-Ming Lim - 2023 - Philosophers' Imprint 23 (1).
    In public discourse, activists are often criticized for directing their acts of political resistance against this or that specific target. Underlying these criticisms appears to be a strongly held, though underarticulated, intuitive moral judgment that some targets are legitimate whereas others are not. Little philosophical attention has been paid to this issue. My primary aim is to address this neglect. I specify a central part of this intuitive judgment – centering on persons and activities – and argue that there is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Self-Defense.Helen Frowe & Jonathan Parry - 2021 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2021.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Forfeiture and the Right to a Fair Trial.Gerald Lang - 2020 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 14 (2):203-213.
    In his Rights Forfeiture and Punishment, Christopher Heath Wellman argues that his preferred ‘strong’ version of rights forfeiture theory makes the moral rights of due process and a fair trial null and void for guilty offenders. They may still possess legal rights to due process, but these are not strong pre-institutional moral rights. I explain here why I disagree with Wellman. I also suggest that he is not entitled, by his own lights, to affirm strong forfeiture theory, at least in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rights Forfeiture and Liability to Harm.Massimo Renzo - 2017 - Journal of Political Philosophy 25 (3):324-342.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Legitimating Torture?Gerald Lang - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (2):331-349.
    Steinhoff defends the moral and legal permissibility of torture in a limited range of circumstances. This article criticizes Steinhoff’s arguments. The analogy between ordinary defensive violence and defensive torture which Steinhoff argues for is partly spoiled by the presence, within defensive torture, of opportunistic harm, in addition to eliminative harm. Steinhoff’s arguments that the mere legalization of defensive torture would not metastasize into a more full-fledged institutionalization of torture are also found wanting. As a minimal form of institutionalization, the mere (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation