Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: There are two distinct perspectives one can take when considering the necessity constraint on defensive force: (1) which defensive option among those averting a threat would minimize harm to attackers (specifically, those potentially liable to defensive harm); and (2) which of these options would minimize harm to bystanders (specifically, those not liable to defensive harm)? This article introduces the concepts of narrow necessity for perspective (1) and wide necessity for perspective (2), following similar terminology for proportionality analysis. Currently, the ethics of defensive force literature lacks these concepts. Adopting them establishes a parallel structure for the proportionality and necessity constraints, so that both have narrow and wide perspectives. This proposal has the advantage of clarifying the scope of the necessity constraint, while also explaining paradigm violations of necessity that raise problems for competing proposals.
Source: Analysis
Author: Ben Jones
Institution: Pennsylvania State University
Language: English
Subfield: Philosophy
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,798
OpenAlex ID: W4416736412
FWCI:
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: