In the standard case of justifiable killing in self-defence one agent without provocation tries to kill a second agent and the second agent’s only way to avoid death is to kill his attacker. It is widely accepted that such killings in self-defence are morally justifiable, but it has proved difficult to show why this is so. Recently, Montague has put forward an account in terms of forcing a choice between lives, and Teichman has propounded a quasi-Hobbesian rights-based account of self-defence. I argue that neither Montague nor Teichman has succeeded in providing an adequate justifcation for killing in self-defence.
|Journal||Journal of Applied Philosophy|
|Publication status||Published - 1992|