10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL. Nuclear Deterrence and Deontology. William H. Shaw. Ethics, Vol. 94, No. 2 (Jan, 1984), pp. 248-260. Published by The University of Chicago Press. Stable URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380515 A number of philosophers have held that it is indeed immoral to threaten an immoral action. Michael Walzer, for example, endorses Paul Ramsey's declaration that "whatever is wrong to do is wrong to threaten" clearly holding that nuclear threats are immoral and that our deterrent policy is essentially a "commitment to murder Likewise, Anthony Kenny holds that "NATO defense policy involves a readiness to commit murder on a gigantic scale" The threat to do so is, of course, conditional, but "one may not intend even conditionally to do what is forbidden absolutely If deterrence is successful, of course, then the threatened immoral action will not in fact happen. But this is not thought to make much moral difference since we are in effect holding the civilian population of the other nation hostage. Ramsey, for example, views the targeting of cities as morally equivalent to tying children to the bumpers of cars in order to ensure that people drive carefully, and Douglas Lackey contends that nuclear deterrence is analogous to McCoy kidnapping Hatfield's child and wiring him to explosives in order to prevent Hatfield's attack McCoy, he says, has no right to increase the chance of Hatfield's child dying. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|