| Popis: |
In this chapter, I offer my evidence-relative account of how we should understand the responsibility criterion for liability attribution of defensive harm. Among rights-based accounts that hold responsibility as necessary for liability attribution, there is a range of options for how to best understand that responsibility. Using the tri-part conceptual framing of belief-relative, evidence-relative, and fact-relative, I argue that liability attribution only holds when the agent in question is in violation of their evidence-relative norms for the unjust threat of harm to be averted by defensive force. This is not a simple culpability account, but respects the agency of the actors trapped in many of these dilemmas, including the epistemic contexts and standings they have in relation to their beliefs. This view, if correct, has a litany of significant implications for how we understand justified defensive harm at both the individual level and the collective use of force. |
