An Examination of a Moral Argument against Nuclear Deterrence

Journal of Religious Ethics 13 (2):279 - 297 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

After some preliminaries ("I") I examine the merits of an argument which is sometimes used in an attempt to show that nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable ("II-V"). This is the argument that deterrence is wrong because it involves a threat to do something which it is wrong to do. My conclusion is that there is something to this argument, that it is sufficient to establish a "prima facie" case against nuclear deterrence, but that it is not sufficient to establish a conclusive case against nuclear deterrence.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence.Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.) - 1982 - New York: St. Martin's Press.
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
2011-05-29

Downloads
48 (#245,874)

6 months
2 (#297,430)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references