Abstract
This piece is a review essay on Victor Tadros’s The Ends of Harm. Tadros rejects retributive desert but believes punishment can be justified instrumentally without succumbing to the problems of thoroughgoing consequentialism and endorsing using people as means. He believes he can achieve these results through extension of the right of self-defense. I argue that Tadros fails in this endeavor: he has a defective account of the means principle; his rejection of desert leads to gross mismatches of punishment and culpability; and he cannot account for punishment of inchoate crimes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I thank Kimberly Ferzan for her helpful comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alexander, L. Can Self-Defense Justify Punishment?. Law and Philos 32, 159–175 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9157-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9157-y