Self-Defense for Theists

Journal of Analytic Theology 10:246-276 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to Theistic Defensive Incompatibilism, common theistic commitments limit the scope or explanation of permissible self-defense. In this essay, I offer six original arguments for Theistic Defensive Incompatibilism. The first four arguments concern narrow proportionality: the requirement that the defensive harm inflicted on unjust threateners not exceed the harm they threaten. Hellism, Annihilationism, and Danteanism each imply that narrow proportionality is rarely satisfied, whereas Universalism implies that killing never harms. The final two arguments concern wide proportionality, or the requirement that defensive harm not excessively harm non-liable third parties. Omnisubjectivity and Divine Love imply that wide proportionality is rarely satisfied.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Proportionality and Self-Defense.Suzanne Uniacke - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
Subjective Proportionality.Patrick Tomlin - 2018 - Ethics 129 (2):254-283.
Proportionality in Self-Defense.Uwe Steinhoff - 2017 - The Journal of Ethics 21 (3):263-289.
A Puzzle About Proportionality.David Alm - 2019 - Res Publica 25 (2):133-149.
Proportionality and Time.Jeff McMahan - 2015 - Ethics 125 (3):696-719.
Self-Defense, Proportionality, and Defensive War against Mitigated Aggression.Jacob Blair - 2013 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (2):207-224.
An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance.Kevin Macnish - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):529-548.
The constitutional structure of proportionality.Matthias Klatt - 2012 - Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Edited by Moritz Meister.
Strict Liability and the Paradoxes of Proportionality.Leo Katz & Alvaro Sandroni - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (3):365-373.
Gains and Losses in Balancing Social Rights.David Duarte - 2018 - In David Duarte & Jorge Silva Sampaio (eds.), Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Springer Verlag. pp. 49-69.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-06-14

Downloads
22 (#692,982)

6 months
13 (#184,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Blake Hereth
University of Pennsylvania

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references