File Download
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Helen Frowe’s ‘Practical Account of Self-Defence’: A Critique
Title | Helen Frowe’s ‘Practical Account of Self-Defence’: A Critique |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Action-guidingness Helen Frowe Justification Objectivism Self-defense |
Issue Date | 2013 |
Publisher | Universitatea din Bucuresti, Facultatea de Filosofia. The Journal's web site is located at http://publicreason.ro/home |
Citation | Public Reason, 2013, v. 5 n. 1, p. 87-96 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Helen Frowe has recently offered what she calls a 'practical' account of self-defense. Her account is supposed to be practical by being subjectivist about permissibility and objectivist about liability. I shall argue here that Frowe first makes up a problem that does not exist and then fails to solve it. To wit, her claim that objectivist accounts of permissibility cannot be action-guiding is wrong; and her own account of permissibility actually retains an objectivist (in the relevant sense) element. In addition, her attempt to restrict subjectivism primarily to 'urgent' situations like self-defense contradicts her own point of departure and is either incoherent or futile. Finally, the only actual whole-heartedly objectivist account she criticizes is an easy target; while those objectivist accounts one finds in certain Western European jurisdictions are immune to her criticisms. Those accounts are also clearly superior to hers in terms of action-guidingness. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/200815 |
ISSN | 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.113 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Steinhoff, UB | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-08-21T07:02:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-08-21T07:02:19Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Public Reason, 2013, v. 5 n. 1, p. 87-96 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2065-7285 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/200815 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Helen Frowe has recently offered what she calls a 'practical' account of self-defense. Her account is supposed to be practical by being subjectivist about permissibility and objectivist about liability. I shall argue here that Frowe first makes up a problem that does not exist and then fails to solve it. To wit, her claim that objectivist accounts of permissibility cannot be action-guiding is wrong; and her own account of permissibility actually retains an objectivist (in the relevant sense) element. In addition, her attempt to restrict subjectivism primarily to 'urgent' situations like self-defense contradicts her own point of departure and is either incoherent or futile. Finally, the only actual whole-heartedly objectivist account she criticizes is an easy target; while those objectivist accounts one finds in certain Western European jurisdictions are immune to her criticisms. Those accounts are also clearly superior to hers in terms of action-guidingness. | - |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Universitatea din Bucuresti, Facultatea de Filosofia. The Journal's web site is located at http://publicreason.ro/home | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Public Reason | en_US |
dc.subject | Action-guidingness | - |
dc.subject | Helen Frowe | - |
dc.subject | Justification | - |
dc.subject | Objectivism | - |
dc.subject | Self-defense | - |
dc.title | Helen Frowe’s ‘Practical Account of Self-Defence’: A Critique | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Steinhoff, UB: ustnhoff@hkucc.hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Steinhoff, UB=rp00610 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84891940359 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 234250 | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 5 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 87 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 96 | en_US |
dc.publisher.place | Romania | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 2065-7285 | - |