Premium
Double Effect
Author(s) -
Wicker Brian
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
new blackfriars
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1741-2005
pISSN - 0028-4289
DOI - 10.1111/j.1741-2005.2009.01307.x
Subject(s) - action (physics) , injustice , ambiguity , nuclear weapon , epistemology , deterrence (psychology) , deterrence theory , philosophy , law and economics , accident (philosophy) , phrase , law , sociology , political science , physics , linguistics , quantum mechanics
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.