I - Self Defence

Philosophical accounts of self-defence

aim to explain when and why using defensive force is permissible

Moderate Self-Defence

Sometimes you may inflict harm to prevent harm from being inflicted on you; other times the infliction of harm to prevent harm on you is morally impermissible

No Permissible Self-Defence (pacifism)

you cannot ever harm to prevent harm to yourself

Any defence goes

when you’re threatened with harm you may always inflict harm to prevent harm

the 2 constant principles for moderate self-defence (if and only if)

necessity and proportionality

• work together and are independant

Necessity

• harming attacker only if there is no other option

• Frowe and others think necessity is “no if you can run away without being harmed you should run away

• Morally required to choose least harmful means

• Mere fact that harm is necessary cannot make it proportionate

Proportionality

• the harm I inflict upon my attacker does not significantly outweigh the good that I hope to secure (avert/mitigate harm)

Culpability Account

• McMahan

• Culpability – the person you are targeting in the harm is in some way blameworthy/doing something bad, which is why they are liable to the harm

• doesn’t explain elevator example (innocent/non-responsible threatener), driver is sometimes argued to be culpable (knew risks)

Right-Based Account (Rights Protection)

• Assume people have a right not to be killed

• when you become a threat to someone else, you waiver your own rights of not being killed, lose protections.

• Thompson thinks anyone who threatens you waives their rights, even people who are not responsible for their own actions (elevator and driver example)

• under a duty of non-interference with respect to a person’s right, must refrain from interfering with that right

Responsibility Account

• To say a person is liable to defensive killings is to say that killing them does not wrong them or violate their rights, has no justified complaint against being killed

• Can become liable to killing only if one is morally responsible for an unjust threat (threat of harm directed at a person who is not liable to that harm)

• account of self-defence that tels us who, as a matter of justice, should bear the most harm

Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

• Alleged distinction between what I intend to cause by my actions/inactions and what I merely foresee I will cause by my actions/inactions

• always impermissible to intend harm, it is sometimes permissible to cause harm as a foreseen side-effect of an action, if doing so is necessary to achieve some proportionate good