David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy and Policy 3 (01):154- (1985)
I. Beyond Utilitarianism In the summer of 1982, I published an article called “Missiles and Morals,” in which I argued on utilitarian grounds that nuclear deterrence in its present form is not morally justifiable. The argument of “Missiles and Morals” compared the most likely sort of nuclear war to develop under nuclear deterrence with the most likely sort of nuclear war to develop under American unilateral nuclear disaramament . For a variety of reasons, I claimed diat the number of casualties in a two-sided nuclear war developing under DET would be at least fifteen times greater than the number of casualties in a one-sided nuclear attack developing under UND. If one assumes that human lives lost or saved is the principal criterion by which nuclear weapons policies should be measured, it follows that DET is morally superior to UND on utilitarian grounds only if the chance of a two-sided nuclear war under DET is more than fifteen times less dian the chance of a one-sided nuclear attack under UND. Since I did not believe that the chance of nuclear war under deterrence is fifteen times less than the chance of nuclear war under unilateral nuclear disarmament, I inferred diat utilitaranism failed to justify DET. Indeed, on utilitarian grounds, DET stood condemned
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jeff McMahan (1989). Is Nuclear Deterrence Paradoxical?:Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism. John Finnis, Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Germain Grisez; Moral Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence. Gregory Kavka. [REVIEW] Ethics 99 (2):407-.
Avner Cohen (1987). Lackey on Nuclear Deterrence: A Public Policy Critique or Applied Ethics Analysis?:Moral Principles and Nuclear Weapons. Douglas P. Lackey. Ethics 97 (2):457-.
Robert McKim (1985). An Examination of a Moral Argument Against Nuclear Deterrence. Journal of Religious Ethics 13 (2):279 - 297.
Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.) (1982). Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
John Finnis, Joseph Boyle & Germain Grisez (1988). Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism. Clarendon Press.
Avner Cohen (1987). Review: Lackey on Nuclear Deterrence: A Public Policy Critique or Applied Ethics Analysis? [REVIEW] Ethics 97 (2):457 - 472.
Michael Allen Fox (1987). Nuclear Weapons and the Ultimate Environmental Crisis. Environmental Ethics 9 (2):159-179.
R. M. Volbrecht (1984). Rose Mary Volbrecht -- Nuclear Deterrence: Moral Dilemmas and Risks. Philosophy and Social Criticism 10 (3-4):133-141.
Henry Shue (ed.) (1989). Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas P. Lackey (1982). Missiles and Morals: A Utilitarian Look at Nuclear Deterrence. Philosophy and Public Affairs 11 (3):189-231.
G. R. Dunstan (1982). Theological Method in the Deterrence Debate. In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Arthur Hockaday (1982). In Defence of Deterrence. In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Geoffrey Goodwin (1982). Deterrence and Détente. In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Richard B. Miller (1988). Love, Intention, and Proportion: Paul Ramsey on the Morality of Nuclear Deterrence. Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (2):201 - 221.
R. Paul Churchill (1989). Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Paternalism. Social Philosophy Today 2:191-204.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads11 ( #159,696 of 1,692,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #184,284 of 1,692,429 )
How can I increase my downloads?