What Follows from Defensive Non-Liaibility?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-11-13
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
118 ( #43,753 of 65,653 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #35,432 of 65,653 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.