Advanced

A Puzzle About Proportionality

Alm, David LU (2017) In Res Publica
Abstract

The paper addresses a puzzle about the proportionality requirement on self-defense due to L. Alexander. Indirectly the puzzle is also relevant to the proportionality requirement on punishment, insofar as the right to punish is derived from the right to self-defense. Alexander argues that there is no proportionality requirement on either self-defense or punishment, as long as the aggressor/offender has been forewarned of the risk of a disproportional response. To support his position Alexander appeals to some puzzle cases, challenging us to explain why the requirement applies in some of them when it clearly does not in others. The paper responds to his challenge by answering two questions: why does the proportionality requirement exist... (More)

The paper addresses a puzzle about the proportionality requirement on self-defense due to L. Alexander. Indirectly the puzzle is also relevant to the proportionality requirement on punishment, insofar as the right to punish is derived from the right to self-defense. Alexander argues that there is no proportionality requirement on either self-defense or punishment, as long as the aggressor/offender has been forewarned of the risk of a disproportional response. To support his position Alexander appeals to some puzzle cases, challenging us to explain why the requirement applies in some of them when it clearly does not in others. The paper responds to his challenge by answering two questions: why does the proportionality requirement exist in the first place, and when does it apply? The paper argues that the requirement holds because of our need to protect our rights from violation, and that it applies to cases where the person defending his rights counts as having imposed a cost on one of the offender’s options. An account is offered of when such cost imposition occurs.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
keywords
Proportionality, Punishment, Rights, Self-defense
in
Res Publica
pages
17 pages
publisher
Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion
external identifiers
  • scopus:85038393005
ISSN
1356-4765
DOI
10.1007/s11158-017-9388-8
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
d9d11b6f-fb4a-41bd-8b6e-7143c7ee4bf9
date added to LUP
2018-01-03 09:16:02
date last changed
2018-01-03 09:16:02
@article{d9d11b6f-fb4a-41bd-8b6e-7143c7ee4bf9,
  abstract     = {<p>The paper addresses a puzzle about the proportionality requirement on self-defense due to L. Alexander. Indirectly the puzzle is also relevant to the proportionality requirement on punishment, insofar as the right to punish is derived from the right to self-defense. Alexander argues that there is no proportionality requirement on either self-defense or punishment, as long as the aggressor/offender has been forewarned of the risk of a disproportional response. To support his position Alexander appeals to some puzzle cases, challenging us to explain why the requirement applies in some of them when it clearly does not in others. The paper responds to his challenge by answering two questions: why does the proportionality requirement exist in the first place, and when does it apply? The paper argues that the requirement holds because of our need to protect our rights from violation, and that it applies to cases where the person defending his rights counts as having imposed a cost on one of the offender’s options. An account is offered of when such cost imposition occurs.</p>},
  author       = {Alm, David},
  issn         = {1356-4765},
  keyword      = {Proportionality,Punishment,Rights,Self-defense},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {12},
  pages        = {17},
  publisher    = {Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion},
  series       = {Res Publica},
  title        = {A Puzzle About Proportionality},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9388-8},
  year         = {2017},
}