The Liability of Justified Attackers

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):1016-1030 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
McMahan argues that justification defeats liability to defensive attack (which would undermine the thesis of the "moral equality of combatants"). In response, I argue, first, that McMahan’s attempt to burden the contrary claim with counter-intuitive implications fails; second, that McMahan’s own position implies that the innocent civilians do not have a right of self-defense against justified attackers, which neither coheres with his description of the case (the justified bombers infringe the rights of the civilians) nor with his views about rights forfeiture, is unsupported by independent argument, and, in any case, extremely implausible and counter-intuitive; and third, that his interpretation of the insulin case confuses the normative relations between an agent’s justification and non-liability on the one hand and permissible or impermissible interference with the agent’s act on the other. Similar confusions, fourth, affect his discussion of liability to compensation.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-04-05
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
267 ( #25,608 of 65,560 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #49,737 of 65,560 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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