Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he restates his rejection and adds to his reasons. We argue that the reasons are not decisive and that the rejection calls for further attention, which we provide. Although we end up agreeing with McMahan that the limits of morally acceptable self-defense are not determined by anyone’s deserts, we try to show that deserts may have some subsidiary roles in the morality of self-defense. We suggest that recognizing this might help McMahan to answer some unanswered questions to which his own position gives rise
The controversy over the death penalty has generated arguments of two types. The first argument appe...
The blameworthy deserve blame. So runs a platitude of commonsense morality. My aim here is to set ou...
This article is concerned with a distinction Jeff McMahan draws between just and justified wars. It ...
Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he r...
Many retributivists maintain that when a defendant commits an offense, (1) the defendant forfeits ri...
This thesis examines the idea of desert as expounded in the work of John Rawls, and some of the impl...
In this paper I examine the relevance of moral desert with regards to compatibilist accounts of mora...
The fifteen new essays collected in this volume address questions concerning the ethics of self-defe...
This paper deals with the conditions of liability to self-defense. When I use the term liability, I ...
In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criteri...
I endorse an old view that distributive justice can best be understood as people getting what they d...
The dispute over the role desert should play, if any, in assessing criminal liability and punishment...
187 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004.Objective considerations of j...
This piece is a review essay on Victor Tadros’s The Ends of Harm. Tadros rejects retributive desert ...
The provocation defence, which militates against full legal responsibility for unjustified killings ...
The controversy over the death penalty has generated arguments of two types. The first argument appe...
The blameworthy deserve blame. So runs a platitude of commonsense morality. My aim here is to set ou...
This article is concerned with a distinction Jeff McMahan draws between just and justified wars. It ...
Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he r...
Many retributivists maintain that when a defendant commits an offense, (1) the defendant forfeits ri...
This thesis examines the idea of desert as expounded in the work of John Rawls, and some of the impl...
In this paper I examine the relevance of moral desert with regards to compatibilist accounts of mora...
The fifteen new essays collected in this volume address questions concerning the ethics of self-defe...
This paper deals with the conditions of liability to self-defense. When I use the term liability, I ...
In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criteri...
I endorse an old view that distributive justice can best be understood as people getting what they d...
The dispute over the role desert should play, if any, in assessing criminal liability and punishment...
187 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004.Objective considerations of j...
This piece is a review essay on Victor Tadros’s The Ends of Harm. Tadros rejects retributive desert ...
The provocation defence, which militates against full legal responsibility for unjustified killings ...
The controversy over the death penalty has generated arguments of two types. The first argument appe...
The blameworthy deserve blame. So runs a platitude of commonsense morality. My aim here is to set ou...
This article is concerned with a distinction Jeff McMahan draws between just and justified wars. It ...