RT Article
T1 Double Effect
JF New blackfriars
VO 90
IS 1028
SP 449
OP 457
A1 Wicker, Brian 1929-
LA English
PB Wiley-Blackwell
YR 2009
UL https://www.ixtheo.de/Record/1780350171
AB 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.
K1 Injustice
K1 Intention
K1 action-description
K1 innocents
K1 Side-effect
DO 10.1111/j.1741-2005.2009.01307.x