NCJ Number
108275
Journal
Law and Contemporary Problems Volume: 49 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1986) Pages: 113-124
Date Published
1986
Length
12 pages
Annotation
In examining Daniel Polsby's rationale for lethal self-defense, this article considers his reasons for believing that utilitarianism is the best theory for analyzing the issue and for concluding that conditional legal permission to use lethal force in self-defense is better than an unconditional prohibition of it.
Abstract
Utilitarians tend to regard legal liberties, claims, powers, and immunities as instrumental social values and prefer that these entitlements be distributed so as to contribute maximally to social welfare. All deontological theories contrast with utilitarianism by denying that the sole value of actions, rules, or laws is the causal role they play in maximizing either total or average social welfare. There is no reason to conclude, as does Polsby, that utilitarianism produces more fruitful questions about the use of lethal force in self-defense than do deontological theories. Utilitarianism requires particularly tortuous reasoning when considering whether a party acting in self-defense is liable for the killing of an innocent third party. Overall, utilitarianism presents problems in requiring that every law or policy be judged by its utility functions. 33 footnotes. For Polsby's article, see NCJ 108274.