Abstract Resisters sometimes threaten self-harm to make demands. When the demands are unmet and the resisters carry through the threat, are their targets responsible for the self-imposed harm? Such scenarios are structurally similar to self-threatening extortions – where in paradigm cases of the latter, the targets often bear no responsibility for the self-imposed harm. People are generally responsible for taking care of their own well-being and interests when they can do so without unreasonable costs and barriers, and a mere threat cannot transfer one’s self-responsibility to others. In the context of resistance against injustice, however, the unjust background conditions can constitute unreasonable costs and barriers. Moreover, the targets may have pre-existing duties to realise the content of what was demanded. In such scenarios, the targets can bear responsibility for the self-imposed harm. Refusing to give in to the threats can furthermore indicate the oppressor’s unwillingness to engage in moral dialogue.
Ten‐Herng Lai (Fri,) studied this question.