Abstract

This chapter presents the third and final leg of a model of defensive rights discussed in the preceding chapter. It explores the ‘moral asymmetry’ problem between defender and aggressor — why the defender is justified in killing an aggressor but not vice versa. It presents specific objections to the initially promising account of self-defence as a forced choice. It argues that an explanation of self-defence cannot be found in the realm of reduced responsibility and necessity. When one kills in self-defence, one is responsible for one’s killing; if the act escapes condemnation, then it must be because killing is, in the circumstances, rightful.