In defense of no one

According to the Wrong Restriction, we are liable to defensive harm only when we threaten to wrong others. While attractive on a first pass, we argue that plausible philosophical claims make the Wrong Restriction difficult to accept. In its place, we offer the Impermissibility Restriction, according to which one is liable to defensive harm only if one would act impermissibly, all things considered. Accepting the Impermissibility Restriction in place of the Wrong Restriction has significant implications for the ethics of self-defense.