ATS1371 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Moral Equivalence, Psychopathy
24 Mar 2020
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Traditional view: the traditional ides is that self-defence is justified if the threat is, necessary. Imminent: one"s response is proportional, this gives enough guidance to decide villainous aggressor cases. For thomson, innocent aggressor and innocent threats meet the simple condition, i. e. if i don"t harm them, they will kill me. Innocent aggressors: still acting, but confused or unaware of the effects of their action (e. g. spikes coffee drug-induced psychopathy) Innocent threats: have no control, but their body is involved in harm in some way (e. g. someone"s body blown off a cliff to squash you. It does not help us decide between attacks. To get away, i have to brush past her, knocking her into a ravine: Innocent is a bystander: otsuka (and thomson) think this is clearly wrong, bystander is beside the threatening truck, and will be killed if i blow it up, bystander has been put inside the truck driven by remote control.
