Immoral Risks: A Deontological Critique of Nuclear Deterrence

Social Philosophy and Policy 3 (1):154 (1985)

Authors
Douglas Lackey
Baruch College (CUNY)
Abstract
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)
DOI 10.1017/S0265052500000212
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: 39,607
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

On Defense by Nuclear Deterrence.Jan Narveson - 1986 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16 (sup1):195-211.

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.
Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence.Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.) - 1982 - St. Martin's Press.
Rose Mary Volbrecht -- Nuclear Deterrence: Moral Dilemmas and Risks.R. M. Volbrecht - 1984 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 10 (3-4):133-141.
Missiles and Morals: A Utilitarian Look at Nuclear Deterrence.Douglas P. Lackey - 1982 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 11 (3):189-231.
Theological Method in the Deterrence Debate.G. R. Dunstan - 1982 - In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
In Defence of Deterrence.Arthur Hockaday - 1982 - In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Deterrence and Détente.Geoffrey Goodwin - 1982 - In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Paternalism.R. Paul Churchill - 1989 - Social Philosophy Today 2:191-204.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-31

Total views
30 ( #253,914 of 2,325,373 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #79,217 of 2,325,373 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature