Who May Carry Out Protective Deterrence&quest

Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):445-447 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Anthony Ellis argues that institutional punishment occurs automatically in a way analogous to mechanical deterrents, and given that issuing real threats is justified for self-defence, institutional punishment, intended to protect society via deterrence, can be justified without violating the Kantian constraint against using persons as means only. But institutional punishments are not in fact executed automatically: they must be carried out by moral agents. Ellis fails to provide a basis for those agents to justify the performance of their legal duties

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00365.x

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Who may carry out protective deterrence?By Michael Sprague - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):445–447.
Punishment as Deterrence: Reply to Sprague.Anthony Ellis - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):98 - 101.
Morality and Paradoxical Deterrence.Steven Lee - 1985 - Social Philosophy and Policy 3 (1):136.
Die Mängel der Abschreckung: Lassen sie sich beheben?Daniel Frei - 1987 - Analyse & Kritik 9 (1-2):97-119.
Five Kinds of Cyber Deterrence.N. J. Ryan - 2018 - Philosophy and Technology 31 (3):331-338.
An Examination of a Moral Argument against Nuclear Deterrence.Robert McKim - 1985 - Journal of Religious Ethics 13 (2):279 - 297.
Is Nuclear Deterrence Paradoxical?:Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism. John Finnis, Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Germain Grisez; Moral Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence. Gregory Kavka. [REVIEW]Jeff McMahan - 1989 - Ethics 99 (2):407-.
Warfighting for Cyber Deterrence: a Strategic and Moral Imperative.David J. Lonsdale - 2018 - Philosophy and Technology 31 (3):409-429.
The Logic of Deterrence.Frank C. Zagare - 1987 - Analyse & Kritik 9 (1-2):47-61.
The Morality of Deterrence.Michael Dummett - 1986 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16 (sup1):111-127.
The Logic of Deterrence.Anthony Kenny, Avner Cohen & Steven Lee - 1987 - Ethics 97 (3):638-653.
Theological method in the deterrence debate.G. R. Dunstan - 1982 - In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
In defence of deterrence.Arthur Hockaday - 1982 - In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Morality, Prudence, and Nuclear Weapons.Steven P. Lee - 1993 - Cambridge University Press.
Escaping from the Bomb: Immoral Deterrence and the Problem of Extrication.C. A. J. Coady - 1989 - In Henry Shue (ed.), Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint. Cambridge University Press. pp. 163--226.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-09-30

Downloads
19 (#778,470)

6 months
1 (#1,510,037)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Punishment as Deterrence: Reply to Sprague.Anthony Ellis - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):98 - 101.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The right to threaten and the right to punish.Warren Quinn - 1985 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (4):327-373.
A deterrence theory of punishment.Anthony Ellis - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):337–351.

Add more references