Self-Defense for Theists

Authors

  • Blake Hereth University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12978/jat.2022-10.011104070407

Abstract

According to Theistic Defensive Incompatibilism, common theistic commitments limit the scope or explanation of permissible self-defense. In this essay, I offer six original arguments for Theistic Defensive Incompatibilism. The first four arguments concern narrow proportionality: the requirement that the defensive harm inflicted on unjust threateners not exceed the harm they threaten. Hellism, Annihilationism, and Danteanism each imply that narrow proportionality is rarely satisfied, whereas Universalism implies that killing never harms. The final two arguments concern wide proportionality, or the requirement that defensive harm not excessively harm non-liable third parties. Omnisubjectivity and Divine Love imply that wide proportionality is rarely satisfied.

Author Biography

Blake Hereth, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Blake Hereth is Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Zir research is in ethics, feminist philosophy, and philosophy of religion.

Downloads

Published

2022-10-21

Issue

Section

Articles