Self-Defense, Forfeiture and Necessity
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
The thesis of this paper is that it is possible to explain why a culpable aggressor forfeits his right not to suffer the harm necessary to prevent his aggression if a killer forfeits his right to life. I argue that this strategy accounts also for the necessity restriction on self-defense. I respond to several objections, including the worry that it makes no sense to attempt a derivation of the relatively uncontroversial (aggressor’s forfeiture) from the highly controversial (killer’s forfeiture).
|Research areas and keywords||
Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY
|Number of pages||25|
|Early online date||2019 Feb 6|
|Publication status||Published - 2019 Nov|