‘Infinite Right’ Proportionality and Liability in Early Modern Ethics of War and Self- Defence

This chapter analyses Pufendorf’s doctrine that natural rights of war and violent self-defence are ‘infinite’. Nothing that victims do to avert an unjust attack can wrong their assailants or leave them with standing to complain. This doctrine—call it Infinite Right—makes it rightful to kill a thief to protect one’s property. I contrast Pufendorf’s interpretation and justification of Infinite Right with those of Grotius and Kant. For Grotius, the in bello requirement of necessity (‘minimum-force’) is internal to Infinite Right. Pufendorf and Kant, by contrast, posited a natural right to kill in self-defence even if less harmful ways of avoiding the unjust threat are available. Grotius and Kant upheld Infinite Right by reasoning that it must be morally possible for victims of unjust aggression to enforce their rights. Pufendorf argued instead that natural law duties are owed only towards those who reciprocally act peacefully and sociably.