Some remarks on the moral aspects of the paradoxes of nuclear deterrence

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14394/etyka.1352

Keywords:

nuclear deterrence, Wrongful Intentions Principle, ethics of war, Gregory S. Kavka, rationality, Principle of Double Effect, decision theory, intentionality

Abstract

The Special Situation of Deterrence (SSO) model developed by Gregory S. Kavka is described in this paper. The model is assessed within the context of normative decision theory. Beginning with an examination of a deterrence paradox arising from the model, various problem-solving methods are presented regarding the nature of the intentions, rationality, and morality of the actions of the agent involved in the SSO. I also present a proposed solution to the deterrence paradox, which is the subject of this article. In addition, I will discuss other factors that influence the ethical evaluation of actions and the adoption and maintenance of intentions by a rational agent who represents a deterrent state.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Martyna Pustoszkin, Szkoła Doktorska Nauk Humanistycznych, Uniwersytet Warszawski

Graduated in Law and Philosophy at the College of Interdisciplinary Individual Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences (MISH) at the University of Warsaw. She is currently writing her doctoral thesis on ontology at the Doctoral School of Humanities at the University of Warsaw. Her research interests include the topics of personal identity and criteria of persistence in time. Professionally, she is associated with legal subjects.

References

Benn, Stanley, I. 1984. „Deterrence or Appeasement? or, On Trying to be Rational about Nuclear War”, Journal of Applied Philosophy 1: 5-20. www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1984.tb00183.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1984.tb00183.x

Farrell, Daniel, M. 1989. „Intention, Reason, and Action”, American Philosophical Quarterly 26, no. 4 (October): 283-295.

Farrell, Daniel, M. 1997. „Niemoralne intencje”. W: Filozofia moralności, Postanowienie i odpowiedzialność moralna, Jacek Hołówka (red.), 283-307. Warszawa: Aletheia.

Foelbar, Robert, E. 1989. „Deterrance and the Moral use of Nuclear Weapons”. W: Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, ed. Henry Shue (ed), 115-162. Nowy York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625145.006

Frankfurt, Harry. 1997. „Alternatywne możliwości i odpowiedzialność moralna”. W: Filozofia moralności. Postanowienie i odpowiedzialność moralna, Jacek Hołówka (red.), 163-174. Warszawa: Aletheia.

Gauthier, David. 1984. „Deterrence, Maximization, and Rationality”, Ethics 3, Vol. 94, (Apr.): 474-495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/292561

Gauthier, David. 1994. „Assure and Threaten” Ethics, 104(4): 690–721. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2382214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/293651

Gewirth, Alan. 1986. „Reason and Nuclear Deterrence”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy suppl. vol 12: 129-159. www.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1986.10717157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1986.10717157

Kavka, Gregory S. 1987. Moral Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kavka, Gregory, S. 1997. “Niektóre paradoksy odstraszania”. W: Filozofia moralności, Postanowienie i odpowiedzialność moralna, Jacek Hołówka (red.), 223-244. Warszawa: Aletheia.

Kenny, Anthony. 1965. "Counterforce and Countervalue". W: Nuclear Weapons and Christian Conscience, Walter Stein (ed.), 155-165. Londyn: Merlin Press.

Kenny, Anthony. 1985. The Logic of Deterrence. London: Firethorn Press.

Knobe, Joshua. 2003. „Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language”, Analysis 63(3): 190-194. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/63.3.190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/63.3.190

Kroon, Frederick. 1996. „Deterrence and the Fragility of Rationality”, Ethics 106 (2): 350–377. www.jstor.org/stable/2382063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/233621

Lackey, Douglas, P. 1984. "The Intentions of Deterrence". W: Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions, Steven Lee, Avner Cohen (ed.), 307-318. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld.

Lackey, Douglas, P. 1986. „Moral philosophy and nuclear deterrence”, The Journal of Bertrand Russell Archives 6, no. 2 (Summer): 85-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15173/russell.v6i1.1670

Lewis, Daniel, K. 1984. "Devil's Bargains and the Real World". W: The Security Gamble: Deterrence in the Nuclear Age, Douglas MacLean (ed.), 141–154. Totowa: Rowman and Allenheld.

McKim, Robert. 1985. „An Examination of a Moral Argument Against Nuclear Deterrence”, The Journal of Religious Ethics, 13, no. 2 (Fall): 279-297.

McMahan, Jeff. 1985. „Deterrence and Deontology”, Ethics, 95(3): 517–536. www.jstor.org/stable/2381035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/292657

Nagel, Thomas. 1997. „Traf w życiu moralnym”. W: Pytania ostateczne, 37-53. Warszawa: Aletheia.

Ustawa Kodeks karny z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r., tj. Dz. U. 1997 Nr. 88 poz. 553.

Paprzycka, Katarzyna. 2014. „Rozwiązanie problemu Butlera i wyjaśnienie efektu Knobe’a”. Filozofia Nauki, 22(2): 73–96. https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/757

Roth, Abraham Sesshu. 2017. „Shared Agency". W: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (Summer Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shared-agency/

Shaw, W. H. 1984. „Nuclear Deterrence and Deontology”, Ethics, 94(2): 248–260. www.jstor.org/stable/2380515 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/292531

Williams, Bernard, O. 1976. „Moral Luck”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. vol: 115–135. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4106826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/50.1.115

Downloads

Published

2024-10-17 — Updated on 2024-10-21

Versions

How to Cite

Pustoszkin, Martyna. (2024) 2024. “Some Remarks on the Moral Aspects of the Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence”. Etyka, October. Warsaw, Poland. https://doi.org/10.14394/etyka.1352.

Issue

Online First

Section

Papers

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Martyna Pustoszkin

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Works published in ETYKA are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0), which entails acknowledgement of authorship. Under this licence, Authors keep their copyrights and agree that their works can be used again legally for any purpose, including commercial ones, without the need to obtain previous consent of the Author or publisher. The articles can be downloaded, printed, copied and disseminated; under the condition that the authorship is indicated accordingly, together with the place of original publication. The Authors preserve their copyrights to the above-mentioned works without any limitation whatsoever.