Final Paper Assignment

Final Paper Assignment

Due December 16th - Early papers are happily accepted.
I will be in class the scheduled day of finals if you would like to hand them in then. The times for that are.
Section 2: Friday 12:30 -2:30
Section 4: Tuesday 5:00 - 7:00
If you want to hand it in at another time my mailbox is in Scott Hall and the philosophy department secretary is there from 8-5.
I will accept them via email (as an attachment) up until 9pm on Friday the 16th, but I will not accept them any later. I understand that you have a lot of work for your other classes and so I am giving you as much time as I possible can to finish this assignment, please do not take advantage of my generosity by handing them in late.

They should be 4-5 pages in length

You can choose either to address a theme such as 'the respect and dignity of human life' or 'utilitarianism' or some other such general theme and discuss some of the various moral problems that we have looked at since midterm. Or you can discuss one of the moral problems we looked at, either War and terrorism, Sexuality and Marriage, or Genetic engineering and cloning.

You should choose a theme and have a thesis that you defend.
What your exact position is, and how you are going to prove it should be included early in the paper, preferably the first paragraph

The first section of your paper should be a brief history of the issues. The second section of the paper should explain the arguments of the competing sides. The third and primary section of the paper should be a reasoned argument to a conclusion, aka your thesis.

I want to know what your thoughts on the issue are. Hopefully the essays we read and the information we have looked at will allow you to form a cohesive view of your own. Your job in this paper is to argue for that view and tell me why your argument has worth.

Below I have included a modified version of a previous post where I gave some pointers on how to write a philosophy paper. Your midterm papers were for the most part quite good, but make sure that you properly cite material that you take from the book or from a secondary source. This has been a recurring problem.


What a Philosophy Paper Should Look Like

Value Added - Quality is measured by how much value that person adds
How to add value:
1. Independent research (not required)
Books and academic articles are the best. Internet resources are always met with a little skepticism. Just because some dude put up that Descartes sucks on his blog doesn’t mean that it counts as a premise in your argument. Using the authors from the book looks good and shows that you have engaged in the assigned readings. I smile upon such research.

2. Your Own ideas (Extremely Valuable)
A. An Argument – Beginning and maintaining a Thesis (required)
B Opinions are cheap, unless backed by an argument
C. Clarifying and explaining issues ONLY is ok but only worth a B- even if it is the best summary ever. I can read the original text, tell me something that isn’t in there. Show me that you understand what the thinker is actually saying, but do it while extrapolating on Your Own Ideas. Actually take a stand on an issue and argue for it using reasons, proofs, examples, and counterarguments.

Structure of the paper:
Introduction – 1st Part
Topic and Thesis statement - This is done by first stating the problem and then stating your solution to the problem. The paper will explain how you get to that solution but this initial introduction to your intended goal is important.
Get readers attention. Spark the reader’s interest - This is fairly easy to do, all you have to do is say why the problem is important, why should anyone care about it in the first place.

Exegesis – 2nd Part
Stating an opponents view or stating the problem as given by another person
Getting the other person straight – Give them the benefit of the doubt
Best way to do this is to use quotes – as evidence of their position
Quotes need citations. Just page # unless you use external – then MLA
Be Concise – don’t give historical backgrounds and dates of birth. This is not a book report.

Analysis – 3rd Part
Your response – The body of the argument
How you solve the problem
Your thesis and your argument for it
Show why and how the problem is solved
Think of essay as an itch that needs to be scratched. Tell why the itch has gone away.
Restate your thesis in your conclusion, end on a strong note


And for the love of all that is right and good with the world:
12pt, times new roman
Title page is the best but otherwise just Name: Class: and title. Don’t take up half a page with your information.
Courier New and other huge fonts make you look silly and raise my eyebrow before I even start reading. Don't mess with the margins either. I would rather it were short then blatently alter in order to meet the page requirement.
Proofread. Do not just spell check, actually read through it. If you write it early enough you might be able to sucker someone into reading it through and finding the mistakes that you missed.
Don’t swear. Write professionally, imagine writing to someone whom you are trying to impress and convince
Umm…don’t write it the night before and have fun….that’s it.

The Final Case Study Assignment

Due the last day of class, in class.

The assignment is the same as usual, please do at least three/fourths a page but keep it less than a page and a half.

p. 174 case study number 1: Eve the first cloned human
Answer discussion question number three

p. 176 case study number 3: Using Clones as Organ Donors
Answer discussion question number four

Genetic Engineering and Cloning Intro

Genetic Engineering and Cloning Intro

Underlying philosophical Questions:

What is it to be human?

Nature vs. Nurture – instinct vs. environment

Is it moral to tamper with our genetic makeup?

Facts, dates and how it works:
1962 James Watson and Francis Crick win Nobel prize for discovery of the molecular structure of DNA

1978 – First test tube baby, Louise Brown. As of 2003 there are over a million test tube (ivf) babies

1980’s – genetically altered food comes onto the market.

1997 – Birth of Dolly the sheep - the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, rather than embryonic

2003 – Complete human genome sequence released to the public

“Each human cell, with the exception of germ or reproductive cells, contains forty-sex chromosomes; each chromosome contains thousands of pairs of four different nucleotides or bases. Altogether, each human cell contains about 3 billion base-pairs of nucleotides, which can be roughly divided into about a hundred thousand sequences known as genes. There are also intervening sequences which, as yet, have an unknown purpose.”(133)

The difference between embryo and nuclei transfer cloning:

Embryo- “the blastocyst, or preembryo, consists of two to eight cells. At this stage in development, cells are not yet specialized into different organ systems. Each cell is still capable of reproducing an entire organism…” (137)

Nuclei – uses adult cells rather than stem cells and “involves taking the nucleus from the cell of an adult and transferring it into a mature egg from which the nucleus has been removed…Because the new nucleus has the full complement of forty-six chromosomes, the renucleated egg and the individual who contracted the new nucleus will be virtually genetically identical…” (137)

There is a glut of new information which needs to be studied and understood. In our lifetime the knowledge of the functions of these genes and of the overall makeup of DNA will be a constant area for discovery.


Positives:

Designer babies:
“Parents may soon be able to have their fetuses tested for genes that incline the child to obesity, shortness, nearsightedness, depression, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s disease, sexual preference, and even ‘risk taking behavior.’” (133) This is similar to the scene we saw in Gattica where the parents were talking with their local ‘geneticist’ about what desirable traits they wanted their child to have. Ability to manipulate the genetic makeup of a baby would allow people to select the characteristics that their child would have. So far we have only a few of the genes identified, over time and with more discovery we will have even greater control over the ‘nature’ of a person.
“Dr. Gregory Stock writes that ‘In the not too distant future, it will be looked at as kind of foolhardy to have a child by normal conception.’”(134)

Complete list of positives on pg. 135

Negatives:

“Ninety percent of Americans are morally opposed to cloning that results in the birth of a human being, and 61 percent are opposed to cloning human embryos for use in medical research. Sixty-six percent of Americans are also opposed to the cloning of animals. About half of Americans support medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos.”(138)


Eugenics – the study of human improvement using genetic means.
Became a negative term after sterilization projects aimed at preventing the reproduction of people who were deemed unfit. State run Nazi programs certainly didn’t help either and are the origins of many doubts about humanity’s ability to handle such a power without abusing it.

Genetic testing could be used to discriminate against healthy individuals and allow people to discriminate against them. For instance, potential employees may not hire someone who has a genetic predisposition to nervousness or health risks.

Cloning reduces people to their genetic code and makes human into robots with working or non working parts that can be fixed and replaced rather than a human being with dignity and respect.

“Genetic enhancement…has also been condemned as tampering with a child’s elf-identity and right to choose their own future.”(139) If someone is told that they have a genetic disposition to be bad at a specific thing there is little chance that they will even try to pursue that thing. We are defined by our environment and our nurtured developments just as much as we are by our nature. Ex. MJ

“There is also concern that clones, because they are human inventions, may be denied the rights of full personhood. Clones could be mass produced to act as drones for the “real” humans. On the other hand, clones because of their more desirable genomes, might become a new master race, while “natural” humans are relegated to an inferior role.”(139)

It is almost impossible to define ‘perfection’ and humanity is certainly no good at it. Are traits such as shortness and homosexuality really a disease that needs to be taken out of the human identity. “If it becomes widespread, cloning of genetically engineered humans would allow one generation to make its descendants as it pleases. All subsequent generations, now cleanses of unacceptable gene3s, would remain subject to that power.”(141)

case study assignment

pg. 424-425

Case Study #7 please answer discussion questions 3 and 4.

Three-fourths to a page and a half is the length requirement and the due date has been changed from tuesday the 22nd to the tuesday after break.

The Vatican - Declaration on Sexual Ethics

The declaration starts by emphasizing the importance of sex
"According to contemporary scientific research, the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual's life the principal traits that distinguish it."(364)

But there is a problem with contemporary views of sex.
"In the present period, the corruption of morals has increased, and one of the most serious indications of this corruption is the unbridled exaltation of sex..."(364)

And now it is time for the Church to step up and outline what is wrong about certain sexual practices and why.

Quick review of Aquinas and the idea of natural law and also of teleology (finality).
Starry night and Einstein example.

"'Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth.' The divine law is accessible to our minds."(365)

All one has to do, is correctly reason.
"They thereby necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed to be identical in all beings endowed with reason."(365)

the laws God made for man are obvious if one only pays attention to the creation itself. In particular, sex has an obviously created intention which is God's design. Therefore, any deviation from this intended use is immoral, because it is not what God made designed it to do.

First they must dismiss a couple other moral theories:

1st cultural relativism - "These principles and norms in no way owe their origin to a certain type of culture, but rather to knowledge of the divine law and of human nature. They therefore cannot be considered as having become out of date or doubtful under the pretext that a new cultural situation has arisen."(365)

2nd Kant's emphasis on Good will and intention - "...the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, 'does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards.'"(365)

Ok, now on to the reasons that premarital sex, homosexuality and masturbation are immoral

Premarital sex and conjugation -
Does not matter if you intend to get married, or whatever your reason is, it is only ok inside of marriage
"However firm the intention of those who practice such premature sexual relations may be, the fact remains that these relations cannot ensure, in sincerity and fidelity, the interpersonal relationship between a man and a woman, nor especially can they protect this relationship from whims and caprices."

aka no social contract or promise binding them to remain faithful
"These requirements call for a conjugal contract sanctioned and guaranteed by society - a contract which establishes a state of life of capital importance both for the exclusive union of the man and the woman and for the good of their family and of the human community."

Society will crumble and there will be no family to raise the children.
"Most often, in fact, premarital relations exclude the possibility of children. What is represented to be conjugal love is not able, as it absolutely should be, to develop into paternal and maternal love."(366)

Discussion question: Would society crumble an immorality become rampant if the institution of marriage and the social pressure to follow its rules was done away with?

Homosexuality - Simple unnatural argument given.

The nature of our sexual design is to produce offspring, without this ability to take place we are misusing the faculties, and this is immoral
"But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack and essential and indispensable finality."(367)

Masturbation - Pretty much the same argument
"The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting in this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."(367)

Sexual Intimacy and Marriage

Sexual Intimacy and Marriage

Intro questions – the morality of pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality

Basic question that we will refer to – What is sex for? What is morally wrong with some sexual encounters and not others? If it is ok to have sex within a marriage why is it immoral to have sex outside of one? Why is marriage moral?

“Consensual sex is noncoercive. Imposing our sexual desires on others without their consent is an affront to the other’s dignity. It is for this reason that adults having sex with children is considered immoral.” (360-361)

This goes for rape as well. Is consent all that is required for a sex act to be morally permissible?

Read silly intro from page 349 Under what conditions does this become an immoral act?

The Religious Answer

“Sexuality has traditionally been regarded as a necessary but dangerous force that needs to be kept under control by laws and prohibitions. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic attitudes toward sexuality have been shaped by teachings in the Bible and Koran which regard marriage as the only proper setting for sexual intimacy and which condemn adultery and fornication as well as homosexual elations. Sex outside of heterosexual marriage is considered wrong because it is in conflict with God’s natural law.”(349)

Sex is for procreation – any other use of sex is a sin.

Sex is associated with sin – therefore a chaste, unmarried life is held up as an ideal in the Catholic Church. As is seen in the enforced celibacy for its priests.

The Feminist Answer

The establishment of marriage is a sham meant to regulate women to an inferior role

Because of statements like this: “woman has her substantial destiny in the family.” (Hegel, 356) This means that the wife cedes her power and rule to the husband because she is naturally inferior. This is a problematic claim for a feminist.

Wollstonecraft – Marriage should not include any subordination but should be a “friendship of equals” (356)

Is Love Neccesary for sex – mutual consent and dignity

Ruddick argues that sex is ‘morally preferable’ if it includes not only benefits for oneself but also for the other person. This is more likely to occur in a situation where there is love and care for the other individual, therefore sex is more moral in environments of a long term commitment - marriage

Is pleasure gained a legitimate reason to have sex? “We engage in other bodily activities with others (e.g., contact sports, massage, and surgery) because these activities bring us pleasure or profit without feeling we have to be in an intimate relationship with the other or affirm their moral worth.”(351)

Homosexuality – what is the argument for its immorality?

“In Iran more than three hundred people were executed between 1990-1996 for violation of laws prohibiting homosexuality.”(350)

“In a 2002 Gallup Poll over half of Americans agreed with the statement that “homosexual behavior is morally wrong” while only 38 percent considered it to be morally acceptable. However more recent 2004 polls show that Americans may be becoming more sympathetic toward the homosexual community.”(353-354)

“The belief that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm was reinforced by Sigmund Feud who wrote that homosexuality resulted from a boy’s inability to resolve his Oedipal conflict and sexual attraction to his mother. For many decades the mental health community accepted Freud’s definition of homosexuality as a perversion and mental disorder. The high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, which was first diagnosed in 1977 among homosexuals, fueled the public’s belief that homosexuality was inherently unhealthy and immoral. It wasn’t until 1994 that the AMA revoked the disease model and its position that medical professionals should aim at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals.”(354)

Aquinas – Because sex is for the purpose of recreating, and homosexual relations do not produce children, therefore homosexual relations are a violation of God’s natural law.

Kant – Because there is no result, aka no children, homosexuality is wrong because you are using the other person for purely personal satisfaction.

Marriage – a two person social contract?

Ex. Friends

What makes us obligated to stay faithful in a marriage? Why is it moral to do so?

What is wrong with this kind of a union between people of the same sex?
“Same-sex marriage is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. In addition, homosexual couples have full legal rights in several European countries.”(354)

“The concept of moral goodness is linked to the well-being and dignity of our fellow human beings. Some philosophers argue that sex outside of heterosexual marriage violates respect for human dignity since it entails using the other merely as an object or tool for one’s pleasure. Sex within a marriage, on the other hand, affirms the other’s worth and dignity. Goldman acknowledges that sexual acts involve the manipulation fo the other’s body for one’s own pleasure. However, he also believes that sex is morally permissible if you make sure you provide sexual pleasure to your partner…Sex within a marriage does not always meet this qualification, while sex outside of marriage may.”(360)

Cohabitation

“They maintain that premarital chastity is the best way to guarantee marital commitment and faithfulness. Indeed, couples who cohabitate before marriage have a significantly higher divorce rate and rate their marriages less positively than couples who did not cohabitate before marriage.”(355)

“Two of the primary reason for cohabitation are readily available sex and convenience.”(355)

Do people who cohabitate make a similar social contract commitment as that of married people?

Discussion Questions:

What is guilt? Where do we get it and why do we have it?

Love is supposed to be a pre-requisite for marriage and hence a pre-requisite for moral sex. Why is it more moral to have sex with someone you love?

Ex. Kids driving forklifts – unequal treatment must be based on morally relevant differences between two groups. What is the basis for the unequal treatment given to homosexual couples?

Homosexuality is found cross-culturally, across the history of humanity, and in animals. “In this sense homosexuality is no more a sickness than is having dark skin or being female”(362) What is fundamentally wrong with calling homosexuality unnatural?

Snow day

No class thursday Nov. 3rd I am ill.

Case studies due date is changed to Nov. 8th

Sohail Hashmi

Sohail Hashmi – Interpreting the Islamic Ethics of war and peace

Hashmi lays out some of the tenets of Jihad and Islamic concepts of war and notes that there are some ambiguities in the term. It is a still evolving concept which is struggling to incorporate modern application. Hashmi's conclusion is that the war theory of Islam is similar in many respects to that of Just War Theory.

In Islam war is an accepted and necessary part of human existence.
Ibn Kaldun – “War is endemic to human existence, something natural among human beings. No nation, no race is free from it.”(659)

After noting that war is inevitable Hashmi turns to the question of ‘why is humanity prone to war’ and provides six answers

1. Even though we are born completely innocent and with full knowledge of God and his moral commands, over time society corrupts us and erodes our sense of right.

2. God’s intention for humanity is to live in peace, eventually. We must first eliminate all the causes for strife in the world, this process will sometimes involve warfare. This is also a process that will eventually end and we will live in peace

3. “[G]iven mans capacity for wrongdoing, there will always be some who choose to violate their nature and transgress against God’s commandments.”(659) Because we have free will and the chance to choose between following God’s commandments or not, there will always be those who choose wrongly, and hence there will always be the strife and conflict that is at the root of war.

4. Opposition is encountered because of those who reject God

Kufr – rejection of God

Kufr results in the inclination towards violence and sin. This can happen to an individual but creates war when it happens to a whole society.

“When an entire society rejects God, oppression and violence become the norm throughout the society and in relation with other societies as well as the moral anarchy that prevails when human beings abandon the higher moral code derived from faith in a supreme and just Creator, the Qur’an suggests, is fraught with potential and actual violence…”(660)

5. “[P]eace, is attanable only when being surrender to God’s will and live according to God’s laws.

6. Because not everyone has yet accepted Islam there will be conflict between Islam and non-Muslims and Muslim’s are commanded to defend Islam. “The use of force by the Muslim community is, therefore, sanctioned by God as a necessary response to the existence of evil in the world.”(660) Fighting is a burden that is placed upon Muslims that is required in order to defend the faith.

This is why war exists, and is inevitable. All other violence is prohibited. The only acceptable time to go to war is if there is a threat to the Islamic community from an outside invader or influencer. This parallels Just War theory’s command that war is only legitimate if it is in self defense.

Hashmi then turns to analyzing the life of Muhammad and concludes that he taught violence only as a last resort and only if there is a reasonable chance of success. Both of which parallel Just War theory.

He concludes:

“No war was jihad unless it was undertaken with right intent and as a last resort, and declared by right authority. Most Muslims today disavow the duty to propagate Islam by force and limit jihad to self-defense. And finally, jihad, like just war, places strict limitations on legitimate targets during war and demands that belligerents use the least amount of force necessary to achieve the swift cessation of hostilities.”(665)

Robinson A. Grover

Robinson Grover – The New State of Nature and the New Terrorism

Grover argues that because of technology we are no back in the state of nature.

Review of state of nature –
Humans live in [C]ontinual fear and the danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty mean, brutish and short.”

We are afraid of those around us so we make contracts and promises with each other in order to ensure our safety.

A sovereign is created to enforce the following of the promises and social contracts.

With an ineffective sovereign is unable to enforce the societal rules then the basis for the society crumbles and we are returned to a state of nature. This will cause perpetual war until a new sovereign is established.

“Hobbes asserts over and over that the state of nature will always and everywhere be a state of war, which will in turn cause a state of primitive anarchy. Hobbes goes on to argue that this outcome is utterly unacceptable and that autocracy is preferable to anarchy.”(668)

How technology has returned us to a state of nature:

1. It has shrunk the world and increased the realm of the state of nature. In a primitive society we need only fear our immediate neighbors, in today’s world and because of technology we can transport goods, money, attacks, and people extremely quickly and from great distances.


2. Because of the increased size of the state of nature there is no central controlling authority. We would need a worldwide sovereign in order to govern such a huge state of nature and since one doesn’t exist we are at constant war.

It should be noted that we would not want a worldwide sovereign because of the potential abuse of power.

“The history of the twentieth century has taught us that a truly evil sovereign is every bit as bas as any anarchy. We have no stomach for any unitary global order that is centralized and coercive, especially if the sovereign is, as it is for Hobbes, above the law.”(673)

He concludes with a pessimistic note about the inescapability of our present predicament. He can see no viable path to get out of the state of nature, all because of technology!

David Luban

David Luban – War on Terorism and the End of Human Rights

Read intro on 682

Third Geneva Convention - “Prisoners of war who refuse to answer (questions) may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”(683)

What is allowed in waging war:

Read pg. 685b

Much freer than law
It is permissible to use lethal force on enemy troops regardless of their amount of personal involvement in the war. Example: it is ok to kill a war cook.

Collateral damage is forseen but unintended – so it is allowable. Example: cop blowing up building and killing innocents is not allowed

Don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Don’t need much evidence, a hunch will do.

Combatants don’t have to have already harmed you, it is ok to attack targets that MIGHT attack you

If the person who is being attacked it is legitimate for them to fight back, this is not so if you are being arrested for breaking the law

Once the person whom you are waging war against is no longer a threat you stop attacking.


What is allowed in enforcing law:

Law-breakers don’t get to shoot back

Law breakers acts of violence subject them to legitimate punishment.


The Hybrid used by Washington and it’s problems:

“[G]iven Washington’s mandate to eliminate the danger of future 9/11’s, so far as humanly possible, the model of war offers important advantages over the model of law.”(682)

“Washington regards international terrorism not only as a military adversary, but also as a criminal activity and criminal conspiracy”(683)

Fighting back against U.S. is considered a legitimate punishable crime.

Either you’re with us or your against us. If you aren’t with us you can harbor enemies and their money, making you an enemy. This clashes with idea of what is allowed in war.

“By selectively combining elements of the war model and elements of the law model, Washington is able to maximize its own ability to mobilize lethal force against terrorists while eliminating most traditional rights of a military adversary, as well as the rights of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.”(683)

“It seems too easy for the President to divest anyone in the world of rights and liberty simply by announcing that the U.S. is at war with them and then declaring them unlawful combatants if they resist. But in the hybrid-war law model, they protest in vain.”(684)

War suspends human rights

War on terror has no defeatable enemy and thus will never end.

Because the war has no end human rights will potentially be violated indefinitely

He Concludes: Because the law model and war model come as conceptual packages, it is unprincipled to wrench them apart and recombine them simply because it is in America’s interest to do so. To declare that Americans can fight enemies with the latitude of warriors, but if the enemies fight back they are not warriors but criminals, amounts to a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose international morality in which whatever it takes to reduce American risk, no matter what the cost to others, turns out to be justified.”(686)

It is already eroding the moral fabric of the world. Pg. 687

Jonathan Granoff

Jonathan Granoff – Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals and Law


Starts off by reminding us that there are universal moral norms that have stood the test of time. List on pg. 697

“States should treat others as they wish to be treated in return.”(677)

“Law is the articulation of values. Values must be based on moral foundations to have credibility. The recognition of the intrinsic sacredness of life and the duty of states and individuals to protect life is a fundamental characteristic of all human civilized values.”(677)

Just war theory and the courts of international law all state that the killing of innocents is illegal. As is the unnecessary suffering of combatants. Nuclear bombs and the nuclear winter that they create violate both of these conditions of warfare.

“Under no circumstance may states make civilians the object of attack nor can they use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. Regardless of whether the survival of a state acting in self defense is at stake, these limitations continue to hold.”(678)

Granoff’s facts about nuclear weapons

“Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the entire system of the planet. Those already in the world’s arsenals have the potential of destroying life on the planet several times over “(677)

“A five megaton weapon represents greater explosive power than all the bombs used in WWI and a twenty megaton bomb more than all the explosives used in all the wars in history. Several states are currently poised ready to deliver weapons that render those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki small. One megaton bomb represents the explosive force of approximately seventy Hiroshimas while a fifteen megaton bomb a thousand Hiroshimas.”(677)


The argument against deterrence

What is the argument for deterrence:
“Deterrence proponents claim that nuclear weapons are not so much instruments for the waging of war but political instruments ‘intended to prevent war by depriving it of any possible rationale.’”(678)

Problems:
“The possession of nuclear weapon s by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them.”(677)
“For deterrence to work one must have the resolve to cause the resulting damage and devastation…”(679)


It is illegal
“What the world faces is nuclear deterrence with its reliance on the horrific destruction of vast numbers of innocent people, destruction of the environment rendering it hostile to generations yet to be blessed with life.”(678)

“It is clear that deterrence is designed to threaten massive destruction which would most certainly violate numerous principles of humanitarian law. Additionally it strikes att generations yet unborn.”(678-679)

Retaliatory deterrence doesn’t make sense and will not work
“Torture is not a permissible response to torture. Nor is mass rape acceptable retaliation to mass rape. Just as unacceptable is retaliatory deterrence – ‘You burnt my city, I will burn yours.’”(679)

It does not make sense to protect the sovereignty of a state at the cost of the lives in that state. The end of Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, my secret group of magical pencil friends, does not mean the end of humanity. Humanity should always be protected over the stability of a sovereignty.

In conclusion:
“If the dispatch of a nuclear weapon causes a million deaths, retaliation with another nuclear weapon which will also cause a million deaths will perhaps protect the soveignty of the state suffering the first strike, and will perhaps satisfy the victim’s desire for revenge, but it will not satisfy humanitarian law, which will have been breached not once but twice; and two wrongs do not make a right.”(679)