Self-Defense and the Killing of Noncombatants: A Reply to Fullinwider

Alexander, L. S.

doi:10.1515/9780691241869-006

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of self-defence, while there is significant debate regarding its underlying justifications, and Fiona Leverick offers a very strong review of consequentialist and person partiality approaches, it will be argued here that at its core the individual first and foremost has the right to protect their own life, even at the expense of another's; and that when an attacker represents a threat they forfeit their usual protections that prevent the victim from killing them (Alexander 1976;Kasachkoff 1998;Montague 1989;Otsuka 1994;Thomson 1991;Leverick, 2006). The starting position here is that the right to life is considered a fundamental, if not the fundamental, human right.…”

Section: Ethical Framework: Justifying the Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ethical Framework for Hacking Operations

Bellaby¹

2023

The Ethics of Hacking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years the power and reach of prominent hacker groups such as Anonymous and LulzSec has been clearly demonstrated. However, in a world where hackers are able to wield significant online power, can they do so ethically as legitimate agents? To answer this question this paper will develop an ethical framework based on the premise that hackers have exhibited instances where they have acted to protect people from harm at a time when there was no one else to do so. At its core this paper will argue that political hacking can be justified when it is done to protect the vital interests of oneself or others. Moreover, it will also argue that just because hackers are outside the state does not automatically discount them as ethical actors and that when the state fails to protect people -whether it is due to a lack of ability, political will or because the state isthesourceofthethreat-hackers can fill the void. In order to achieve this, first it is necessary to highlight the space for hackers to operate; second, guide hacker activity by creating an ethical framework detailing what actions are justified towards what end; third, to offer mechanisms that can aid in reaching these ethically justified decisions; and as a result, inform further ethical debates on how to react to these political hackers. This means that the framework can be used to both justify and condemn hacking depending on the circumstances, allowing those on the outside to distil and evaluate a political hack, both past and present, while guiding hacker collectives by providing clearer ethical tools for determining the appropriate agendas and methods.

show abstract

Section: Ethical Framework: Justifying the Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ethical Framework for Hacking Operations

Bellaby¹

2023

The Ethics of Hacking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At most, he suggests, the mobsters may be punished for their guilt in instigating the murder. 50 But, he asks, "may Jones invoke the Principle of Self-Defense to kill the mobsters instead of Smith if by doing so he will cause Smith to relent?" If the mobsters had a gun trained on Smith and had ordered him to kill Jones, and he were about to comply, then Alexander argues that Jones not only could, but should, kill the mobsters rather than Smith.…”

Section: A Variable Culpability Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rights-based Justifications for Self-Defense

Ford¹

2022

International Journal of Applied Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I defend a modified rights-based unjust threat account for morally justified killing in self-defense. Rights-based moral justifications for killing in self-defense presume that human beings have a right to defend themselves from unjust threats. An unjust threat account of self-defense says that this right is derived from an agent’s moral obligation to not pose a deadly threat to the defender. The failure to keep this moral obligation creates the moral asymmetry necessary to justify a defender killing the unjust threat in self-defense. I argue that the other rights-based approaches explored here are unfair to the defender because they require her to prove moral fault in the threat. But then I suggest that the unjust threat account should be modified so that where the threat is non-culpable or only partially culpable, the defender should seek to share the cost and risk with the threat in order for both parties to survive.

show abstract

Self-Defense and the Killing of Noncombatants: A Reply to Fullinwider

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

An Ethical Framework for Hacking Operations

An Ethical Framework for Hacking Operations

Rights-based Justifications for Self-Defense

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About