The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Killing the Innocent in Self‐Defense
Abstract
I presented an earlier version of this paper to the Law and Philosophy Discussion Group in Los Angeles, whose members I would like to thank for their comments. In addition, I would also like to thank the following people for reading and providing written or verbal commentary on earlier drafts: Robert Mams, Rogers Albritton, G. A. Cohen, David Copp, Matthew Hanser, Craig Ihara, Brian Lee, Marc Lange, Derk Pereboom, Carol Voeller, and the Editors of Philosophy & Public Affairs. I owe special thanks to Timothy Hall and Seana Shiffnn for their insightful and helpful comments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life
McMahan, J. (2002) · doi:10.1093/0195079981.001.0001 · Cited by 1,157
Rodin, D. (2002) · Ethics & International Affairs · doi:10.1093/0199257744.001.0001 · Cited by 447
McMahan, J. (2004) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/422400 · Cited by 285
A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination
Flanigan, J. (2014) · HEC Forum · doi:10.1007/s10730-013-9221-5 · Cited by 140
Metadata
- Authors
- OTSUKA, M.
- Venue
- Philosophy & Public Affairs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 74-94
- ISSN
- 0048-3915 (ISSN-L)
- 1088-4963
- OpenAlex
- W2143936337
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Killing the Innocent in Self‐Defense. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1994.tb00005.x
- The paper
- OTSUKA, M. (1994). Killing the Innocent in Self‐Defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1994.tb00005.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
