Double Effect
Any killing of the innocent intrinsic to nuclear deterrence strategy (admitted as unavoidable by Michael Quinlan), is often excused as a side effect, not directly intended, of any proposed use of nuclear weapons. As such, he claimed, it can be ‘morally tolerable’. Quite apart from the systematic amb...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2009
|
| In: |
New blackfriars
Year: 2009, Volume: 90, Issue: 1028, Pages: 449-457 |
| Further subjects: | B
action-description
B Injustice B Side-effect B Intention B innocents |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Any killing of the innocent intrinsic to nuclear deterrence strategy (admitted as unavoidable by Michael Quinlan), is often excused as a side effect, not directly intended, of any proposed use of nuclear weapons. As such, he claimed, it can be ‘morally tolerable’. Quite apart from the systematic ambiguity of this phrase, I argue the claim itself is fallacious, depending as it does on the right choice of description of the proposed action. The appropriate description of any action, and hence of any command, to use a nuclear bomb will unavoidably entail intentionally killing innocents along with combatants. I argue thus by analysing the implications of an example of ‘double effect’ suggested by Michael Quinlan himself. If I am right, the injustice of deterrence strategy is stupendous. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1741-2005 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: New blackfriars
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2005.2009.01307.x |