Defensive Desert

Bibliographic Data

ID10927152
AuthorsWilliam Bell (0000-0003-1965-9713, Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis Missouri USA, corresponding author)
Year2026
Volume54
Issue2
Pages105-115
Publication date2026-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhilosophy & Public Affairs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0048-3915 • E-ISSN: 1088-4963
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/papa.70013
OpenAlexW7124260806
LanguageEN
References cited27

When aiming to justify the infliction of harm upon a culpable wrongdoer, the notion of desert most readily finds its home within the context of punishment. Thus, according to one dominant theory of punishment, retributivism, a wrongdoer deserves the hard treatment constitutive of punishment. In this paper, I argue that desert can play a role in helping justify certain types of defensive action. Specifically, I aim to show how desert‐based reasons can help justify seemingly futile defensive efforts. Importantly, this justification does not stem from the idea that the victim of an attack may “draw against punishment” in seeking to avert a threat, but rather from the belief that culpable aggressors deserve to be resisted

Context (archaeology · Desert (philosophy · Harm · Punishment (psychology · Free Will and Agency · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · War, Ethics, and Justification

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access