What Follows from Defensive Non-Liaibility?

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 117 (3):231-252 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Theories of self-defence tend to invest heavily in ‘liability justifications’: if the Attacker is liable to have defensive violence deployed against him by the Defender, then he will not be wronged by such violence, and selfdefence becomes, as a result, morally unproblematic. This paper contends that liability justifications are overrated. The deeper contribution to an explanation of why defensive permissions exist is made by the Defender’s non-liability. Drawing on both canonical cases of self-defence, featuring Culpable Attackers, and more penumbral cases of self-defence, involving Non-Responsible Threats, a case is assembled for the ‘Non-Liability First Account’ of self-defence.

Author's Profile

Gerald Lang
University of Leeds

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-10-25

Downloads
142 (#50,049)

6 months
14 (#60,796)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?