Puzzles on defending others from aggression

Law and Philosophy 25 (3):377-386 (2005)
We all agree on the justification of defending ourselves or others in some situations, but we do not often agree on why. Two main views compete: subjectivism and objectivism. The discussion has mainly been held in normative terms. But every theory must pass a previous test: logical consistency. It has recently been held that, at least in the case of defending others from aggression, objective theories lead, in some situations, to normative contradiction. My aim is to challenge the idea that only objective theories have this uncomfortable feature. In fact, any plausible theory justifying the defense of others, whether subjectively or objectively, can lead to situations of normative inconsistency. Therefore, the logical test is not the most fitting one for choosing between different theories of private defense.
Keywords Law   Logic   Philosophy of Law   Law Theory/Law Philosophy   Political Science   Social Issues
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10982-005-3222-8
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,182
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
VIII-Permissible Rescue Killings.Cécile Fabre - 2009 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt2):149-164.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

18 ( #271,884 of 2,172,024 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #325,967 of 2,172,024 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums