坚守阵地的不合理性:关于自卫的博弈论

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS

Moral Philosophy and Politics Pub Date : 2022-11-29 DOI:10.1515/mopp-2022-0007

C. Santana, Adam C. Smith, Kathryn Petrozzo, Derek Halm

{"title":"坚守阵地的不合理性:关于自卫的博弈论","authors":"C. Santana, Adam C. Smith, Kathryn Petrozzo, Derek Halm","doi":"10.1515/mopp-2022-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract US law continues its historical trend of growing more permissive towards actors who engage in violent action in purported self-defense. We draw on some informal game theory to show why this is strategically irrational and suggest rolling back self-defense doctrines like stand your ground to earlier historical precedents like duty to retreat.","PeriodicalId":37108,"journal":{"name":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Irrationality of Stand Your Ground: Game Theory on Self-Defense\",\"authors\":\"C. Santana, Adam C. Smith, Kathryn Petrozzo, Derek Halm\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/mopp-2022-0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract US law continues its historical trend of growing more permissive towards actors who engage in violent action in purported self-defense. We draw on some informal game theory to show why this is strategically irrational and suggest rolling back self-defense doctrines like stand your ground to earlier historical precedents like duty to retreat.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Moral Philosophy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Moral Philosophy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2022-0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2022-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

美国法律继续其历史趋势，即对那些以所谓的自卫为目的进行暴力行为的行为者越来越宽容。我们利用一些非正式的博弈论来说明为什么这在战略上是非理性的，并建议将“坚守阵地”之类的自卫理论退回到早期的历史先例，比如“撤退的责任”。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Irrationality of Stand Your Ground: Game Theory on Self-Defense

Abstract US law continues its historical trend of growing more permissive towards actors who engage in violent action in purported self-defense. We draw on some informal game theory to show why this is strategically irrational and suggest rolling back self-defense doctrines like stand your ground to earlier historical precedents like duty to retreat.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Moral Philosophy and Politics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量