Analyzing self-harm threats in contexts of resistance, revealing complex issues of responsibility.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ten‐Herng Lai (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: