Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chaos

Nye 81

Recommended Posts

Pretty sure that's the cite. It says that inaction due to fear of getting your hands dirty is bad.

 

Can anyone provide it please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure that's the cite. It says that inaction due to fear of getting your hands dirty is bad.

 

Can anyone provide it please?

 

This card?

 

 

Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics†pg. 45-46)

 

Is there any end that could justify a nuclear war that threatens the survival of the species? Is not all-out nuclear war just as self contradictory in the real world as pacifism is accused of being? Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act. In that case, survival may be worth betrayal." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers, including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult tradeoffs. If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value and little else. Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values, but that does not make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an absolute value. Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This card?

No, but I found a more complete cite thanks to you, because you found the right book and date.

 

+rep for trying. I can find it on my own now.

 

Thanks a bunch!

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a great Consequentualism file I can find tonight in case you don't find it. It has the card you're looking for in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Derpen here

 

Way to find the oldest Nye card evar written, your so debate hipster, can't settle for "new" Nye cards from 2011

 

PEACE OUT

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...