On Deontological Justifications of Nuclear Risks

Dissertation, University of California, Irvine (1989)

Abstract
Some nuclear ethicists have argued that, given a deontological moral perspective, the risks of nuclear deterrence are justified only if the benefits of deterrence greatly exceed those risks. My dissertation explores the possibility that this is a mistake, that the risks of deterrence can be justified within a deontological moral framework even if the benefits of deterrence are only slightly larger or even smaller than those risks. In the first chapter, I outline and briefly discuss eight possible deontological justifications of nuclear risks, none of which require large net benefits from deterrence. The remaining chapters develop, analyze, and evaluate three of these justifications. ;One of the three is an attempt to justify the risks of deterrence by an appeal to the right of a nation to defend itself against an unwarranted threat to its security. I defend a particular formulation of the relevant principle of defense and then argue that, at best, only the risks imposed on the Soviet adult population can be justified by an appeal to this principle. The second justification is based on the proposition that, as the beneficiary of her government's defense policies, the Soviet citizen is liable for the threat to U.S. security generated by these policies. I defend this proposition; and I use it to construct a plausible argument that certain forms of deterrence may be justified even if their benefits do not exceed their risks. The third justification rests on the principle of double effect. I argue that the risks of deterrence are not intended and therefore, if the benefits of deterrence outweigh its costs, the risks of deterrence may be justified under this principle
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,195
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

An Examination of a Moral Argument Against Nuclear Deterrence.Robert McKim - 1985 - Journal of Religious Ethics 13 (2):279 - 297.
Risks, National Defense, and Nuclear Deterrence.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 1992 - Public Affairs Quarterly 6 (3):345-362.
Morality and Paradoxical Deterrence.Steven Lee - 1985 - Social Philosophy and Policy 3 (1):136.
Facing the Consequences.Nathan Hanna - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (3):589-604.
Rose Mary Volbrecht -- Nuclear Deterrence: Moral Dilemmas and Risks.R. M. Volbrecht - 1984 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 10 (3-4):133-141.
Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence.Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.) - 1982 - St. Martin's Press.
Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW]Georg Spielthenner - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-05

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes

Sign in to use this feature