What policies a society should adopt for its nuclear weapons is a profoundly moral question. But it is not the same sort of moral question that confronts an individual who must make particular choices in the decisions in his daily life. What is right and wrong for a society constitutes a different inquiry from the questions of right and wrong for the individual. Few of us deny that to preserve its national security in a war, a society may legitimately destroy enemy targets in the course of which it will kill unarmed persons; indeed that society may authorize individuals to do the killing who, were they acting simply on their own behalf, it would try for murder. In a democracy, the citizen faces two questions: what ought I authorize my society to do on its behalf (which includes, but is scarcely limited to, its responsibility to protect me)? What ought Ito do-or refuse to do-to discharge my own responsibilities (which are not limited to considerations on my own behalf but which include my duty to protect my society)? What these questions have in common in any particular instance is that they demand that we understand the factual context of such choices. For there is no moral question of any significance that is not fact-drenched and no ‘facts’ of any importance that are not inextricably embedded in particular ways of looking at the world.
KeywordsNuclear Weapon Extended Theatre Moral Question Nuclear Deterrence Nuclear Threat
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.