Public Affairs Quarterly 29 (4):385-402 (2015)

Authors
Uwe Steinhoff
University of Hong Kong
Abstract
In this paper, I will provide a conceptual analysis of the term self-defense and argue that in contrast to the widespread “instrumentalist” account of self-defense, self-defense need not be aimed at averting or mitigating an attack, let alone the harm threatened by it. Instead, on the definition offered here, an act token is self-defense if and only if a) it is directed against an ongoing or imminent attack, and b) the actor correctly believes that the act token is an effective form of resistance or the act token belongs to an act type that usually functions as a means to resist an attack. While resistance is effective in making the attack more difficult, it can often be overcome and therefore does not necessarily stop or mitigate the attack. This concept of self-defense, I shall argue, not only matches ordinary language use and plausible accounts of self-defense in the legal literature but also has important practical implications in helping to avoid confusions about necessity and proportionality. In particular, it avoids the notorious problem of the “knowingly helpless rape victim” whose futile struggle against the rapist (futile in terms of averting or mitigating harm) counter-intuitively could not count as justified self-defense on an instrumentalist account.
Keywords attack  definition  harm  helpless victim  imminence  instrumentalism  resistance  self-defense
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Justifying Harm.David Rodin - 2011 - Ethics 122 (1):74-110.
A Practical Account of Self-Defence.Helen Frowe - 2010 - Law and Philosophy 29 (3):245-272.
On Disproportionate Force and Fighting in Vain.Gerhard Øverland - 2011 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):235-261.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Proportionality and Self-Defense.Suzanne Uniacke - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
Defense.Kai Draper - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (1):69 - 88.
A Modified Flew Attack on the Free Will Defense.Frank B. Dilley - 1982 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):25-34.
The Success Condition for Legitimate Self-Defense.Daniel Statman - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 3 (4):89-94.
In Defense of Self-Defense.Ann J. Cahill - 2009 - Philosophical Papers 38 (3):363-380.
Is There a Right of National Defense?Thomas Peard - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:341-347.
A Defense of the Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm.Justin Klocksiem - 2012 - American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):285 – 300.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-11-14

Total views
344 ( #29,351 of 2,498,128 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,577 of 2,498,128 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes