Desert and avoidability in self-defense
Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he restates his rejection and adds to his reasons. We argue that the reasons are not decisive and that the rejection calls for further attention, which we provide. Although we end up agreeing with McMahan...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
University of Chicago Press
2011
|
| _version_ | 1826266596207755264 |
|---|---|
| author | Gardner, J Tanguay-Renaud, F |
| author_facet | Gardner, J Tanguay-Renaud, F |
| author_sort | Gardner, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he restates his rejection and adds to his reasons. We argue that the reasons are not decisive and that the rejection calls for further attention, which we provide. Although we end up agreeing with McMahan that the limits of morally acceptable self-defense are not determined by anyone’s deserts, we try to show that deserts may have some subsidiary roles in the morality of self-defense. We suggest that recognizing this might help McMahan to answer some unanswered questions to which his own position gives rise. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:41:21Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:34646a79-98b3-471e-8a0b-0a82caab6e79 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:41:21Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publisher | University of Chicago Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:34646a79-98b3-471e-8a0b-0a82caab6e792022-03-26T13:25:40ZDesert and avoidability in self-defenseJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:34646a79-98b3-471e-8a0b-0a82caab6e79Symplectic Elements at OxfordUniversity of Chicago Press2011Gardner, JTanguay-Renaud, FJeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he restates his rejection and adds to his reasons. We argue that the reasons are not decisive and that the rejection calls for further attention, which we provide. Although we end up agreeing with McMahan that the limits of morally acceptable self-defense are not determined by anyone’s deserts, we try to show that deserts may have some subsidiary roles in the morality of self-defense. We suggest that recognizing this might help McMahan to answer some unanswered questions to which his own position gives rise. |
| spellingShingle | Gardner, J Tanguay-Renaud, F Desert and avoidability in self-defense |
| title | Desert and avoidability in self-defense |
| title_full | Desert and avoidability in self-defense |
| title_fullStr | Desert and avoidability in self-defense |
| title_full_unstemmed | Desert and avoidability in self-defense |
| title_short | Desert and avoidability in self-defense |
| title_sort | desert and avoidability in self defense |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gardnerj desertandavoidabilityinselfdefense AT tanguayrenaudf desertandavoidabilityinselfdefense |