Stand Your Ground

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter argues that the proportionality principle is indefensible, and that aggregative ethical theories that entail that principle are thus similarly indefensible. Inasmuch as the duty to retreat is a corollary of the proportionality principle, it too must be rejected. An alternative deontological view, under which one may use whatever force is necessary to defend one’s rights (including the right to liberty that would be lost if forced to make a retreat), escapes the counterintuitive results of theories that are conceptually wedded to the proportionality principle. The chapter suggests that at least the most obvious challenges to such a view are easily defeasible. As such, we should think that our best moral theory gives ample support for laws that entitle people to stand their ground, rather than requiring them to run from trouble.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Ethics of Self-Defense
EditorsChristian Coons, Michael Weber
PublisherOxford University Press
ISBN (Print)9780190206086, 9780190206093
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Keywords

  • proportionality
  • stand your ground
  • rights
  • provocation
  • necessity
  • forfeiture
  • retreat

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Stand Your Ground'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this