自卫、权利要求和枪支

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1111/phil.12351
Chetan Cetty
{"title":"自卫、权利要求和枪支","authors":"Chetan Cetty","doi":"10.1111/phil.12351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The right to self‐defense has played a major role in objections to gun regulation. Many contend that gun regulations threaten this right. While much philosophical discussion has focused on the relation between guns and this right, less attention has been paid to the argument for the right of self‐defense itself. In this article, I examine this argument. Gunrights defenders contend that the right of self‐defense is needed to explain why interferences in self‐defense are wrong. I propose an alternative explanation for such wrongs, one which does not posit the existence of a self‐defense right, and then show how it undermines their claim that there exists a strong presumption against gun regulation. I conclude by articulating the implications of this alternative explanatory account for other rights.","PeriodicalId":43937,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self‐defense, claim‐rights, and guns\",\"authors\":\"Chetan Cetty\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phil.12351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The right to self‐defense has played a major role in objections to gun regulation. Many contend that gun regulations threaten this right. While much philosophical discussion has focused on the relation between guns and this right, less attention has been paid to the argument for the right of self‐defense itself. In this article, I examine this argument. Gunrights defenders contend that the right of self‐defense is needed to explain why interferences in self‐defense are wrong. I propose an alternative explanation for such wrongs, one which does not posit the existence of a self‐defense right, and then show how it undermines their claim that there exists a strong presumption against gun regulation. I conclude by articulating the implications of this alternative explanatory account for other rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/phil.12351\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phil.12351","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自卫权在反对枪支管制中发挥了重要作用。许多人认为,枪支管制威胁到了这一权利。虽然许多哲学讨论都集中在枪支与这一权利之间的关系上,但对自卫权本身的争论却很少受到关注。在本文中,我将研究这一论点。枪支权利的捍卫者认为,需要有自卫权来解释为什么干涉自卫权是错误的。我对这些错误提出了另一种解释,一种不假设存在自卫权利的解释,然后说明它如何破坏了他们的主张,即存在反对枪支管制的强烈假设。最后,我阐明了这种替代性解释对其他权利的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Self‐defense, claim‐rights, and guns
Abstract The right to self‐defense has played a major role in objections to gun regulation. Many contend that gun regulations threaten this right. While much philosophical discussion has focused on the relation between guns and this right, less attention has been paid to the argument for the right of self‐defense itself. In this article, I examine this argument. Gunrights defenders contend that the right of self‐defense is needed to explain why interferences in self‐defense are wrong. I propose an alternative explanation for such wrongs, one which does not posit the existence of a self‐defense right, and then show how it undermines their claim that there exists a strong presumption against gun regulation. I conclude by articulating the implications of this alternative explanatory account for other rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM
PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Since 1970, The Philosophical Forum has been publishing innovative, interdisciplinary contributions in contemporary philosophical inquiry and bridging the gap between analytical and continental scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Self‐defense, claim‐rights, and guns Why be a relational egalitarian? Juche in the broader context of Korean philosophy Christian epistemology. How faith can shape and promote rationality “Am I safe enough for you now?” BPD and the forced erasure of personal identity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1