Divided Deterrence: The Philosophical Community’s Response to Nuclear Warfare in 1980s

Abstract

This paper investigates the varied reaction of the Western analytic philosophical community to the ethical quandaries created by nuclear deterrence throughout the Cold War era, notably in the 1980s. It covers the important disputes during the 1984 Aspen Institute Conference, with an emphasis on philosophical differences between Jan Narveson and Jeff McMahan. The study also addresses Leslie Stevenson’s nuanced stance, which was delivered outside the meeting. By evaluating these philosophical conversations, the article emphasizes the larger ethical issues of nuclear weapons and the importance of serious moral deliberation in dealing with global dangers. A historical assessment of these disputes illustrates the constant difficulties in reaching an agreement on the ethical use of nuclear deterrence, acting as a reminder of the continued need for philosophical direction in contemporary global issues.