Abstract
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.