Reply to Ferzan’s Review of Self-Defense, Necessity, and Punishment

Abstract

This brief reply to Ferzan shows that her recent review of Self-Defense, Necessity, and Punishment is incoherent and completely misrepresents a central claim of mine (to the point of attributing to me the opposite claim than the one I am actually and quite clearly and explicitly making). Her other criticisms fall flat too.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law.Larry Alexander, Kimberly Kessler Ferzan & Stephen J. Morse - 2009 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Kimberly Kessler Ferzan & Stephen J. Morse.
Iconoclasts? Who, Us? A Reply to Dolinko.Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2012 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2):281-287.
Justifying self-defense.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2005 - Law and Philosophy 24 (6):711-749.
Justification and excuse.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2011 - In John Deigh & David Dolinko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Homicide.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2013 - In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
Introductions.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan & John F. K. Oberdiek - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (1):1-1.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-26

Downloads
372 (#51,785)

6 months
71 (#61,020)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Uwe Steinhoff
University of Hong Kong

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references