{"title":"Political Theory and Limiting the Right of Self-Defense","authors":"R. Leider","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2021.2005866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jonathan Quong’s The Morality of Defensive Force tackles difficult questions concerning the moral justification of self-defense. Some are big structural questions. How does the permissibility of defensive force relate to broader moral principles? Should we have a single, unified theory of defensive force or multiple theories? Others involve narrower issues, including developing a theory of the triggering conditions for self-defense and providing novel justifications for the necessity and proportionality limitations. When it comes to some big structural questions (e.g. the relationship between self-defense and broader moral theory), The Morality of Defensive Force represents a major step forward. But the book’s omission of political theory leaves me skeptical of some answers that Quong provides to the narrower issues. In The Morality of Defensive Force, Quong does not offer a single unified theory of self-defense; instead, he presents two theories that provide independent sufficient grounds to justify defensive violence within their respective spheres. The first theory applies to cases in which “an attacker is liable to defensive harm... , and thus, he is not wronged, and has no standing to complain, when some defensive harm is imposed on him” (18). The second theory, in contrast, involves self-defense cases in which neither party has done an action that makes the person liable to defensive violence. These are cases in which innocent victims face threats from otherwise justified attackers or nonresponsible threats (58). Let’s begin with the first theory. This theory involves core selfdefense cases, such as when a culpable Aggressor A unjustly threatens to kill a victim V. What makes A liable to defensive force by V? Much previous scholarship grounds V’s permission to use defensive force either on A’s culpability in creating the threat or on the fact that ∗Robert Leider is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Email: rleider@gmu.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2021 Vol. 40, No. 3, 274–283, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.2005866","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"40 1","pages":"274 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.2005866","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Jonathan Quong’s The Morality of Defensive Force tackles difficult questions concerning the moral justification of self-defense. Some are big structural questions. How does the permissibility of defensive force relate to broader moral principles? Should we have a single, unified theory of defensive force or multiple theories? Others involve narrower issues, including developing a theory of the triggering conditions for self-defense and providing novel justifications for the necessity and proportionality limitations. When it comes to some big structural questions (e.g. the relationship between self-defense and broader moral theory), The Morality of Defensive Force represents a major step forward. But the book’s omission of political theory leaves me skeptical of some answers that Quong provides to the narrower issues. In The Morality of Defensive Force, Quong does not offer a single unified theory of self-defense; instead, he presents two theories that provide independent sufficient grounds to justify defensive violence within their respective spheres. The first theory applies to cases in which “an attacker is liable to defensive harm... , and thus, he is not wronged, and has no standing to complain, when some defensive harm is imposed on him” (18). The second theory, in contrast, involves self-defense cases in which neither party has done an action that makes the person liable to defensive violence. These are cases in which innocent victims face threats from otherwise justified attackers or nonresponsible threats (58). Let’s begin with the first theory. This theory involves core selfdefense cases, such as when a culpable Aggressor A unjustly threatens to kill a victim V. What makes A liable to defensive force by V? Much previous scholarship grounds V’s permission to use defensive force either on A’s culpability in creating the threat or on the fact that ∗Robert Leider is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Email: rleider@gmu.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2021 Vol. 40, No. 3, 274–283, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.2005866
Jonathan Quong的《防卫力量的道德》解决了有关自卫的道德正当性的难题。有些是重大的结构性问题。防御力量的允许性与更广泛的道德原则有何关系?我们应该有一个单一的、统一的防御力理论还是多种理论?其他涉及范围较窄的问题,包括发展自卫触发条件的理论,以及为必要性和相称性限制提供新的理由。当涉及到一些重大的结构性问题(例如自卫与更广泛的道德理论之间的关系)时,《防卫力量的道德》代表着向前迈出了重要一步。但这本书省略了政治理论,这让我对孔为更狭隘的问题提供的一些答案持怀疑态度。在《防卫力量的道德》一书中,孔没有提出一个统一的自卫理论;相反,他提出了两种理论,它们提供了独立的充分理由,为各自领域内的防御性暴力辩护。第一种理论适用于“攻击者有可能受到防御性伤害……因此,当一些防御性伤害强加给他时,他没有受到冤枉,也没有资格抱怨”(18)的情况。相比之下,第二种理论涉及自卫案件,在这些案件中,任何一方都没有采取使当事人承担自卫暴力责任的行动。在这些情况下,无辜受害者面临来自其他正当攻击者或无回应威胁的威胁(58)。让我们从第一个理论开始。这一理论涉及核心自卫案件,例如当应受谴责的施暴者a不公正地威胁要杀死受害者V时。是什么让a有责任受到V的自卫?此前的许多学术研究都以A制造威胁的罪责为理由,或以*Robert Leider是乔治梅森大学Antonin Scalia法学院的助理法学教授为理由,允许V使用防御武力。电子邮件:rleider@gmu.edu《刑事司法伦理》,2021年第40卷,第3期,274-283,https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.2005866