Last year, Rathbun and Rachel Stein of George Washington University set out to explore how people’s moral foundations affected their attitudes to nuclear weapons. Like with the “Atomic Aversion” study, the pair asked participants from the US to put themselves in the shoes of a leader weighing up whether to make a nuclear strike against a military base, varying factors such as weapon effectiveness, the identity of the enemy, and associated casualties.
The pair found that people who prioritised so-called “binding” moral values of loyalty and respect for authority – which probably evolved to strengthen the “in-group” and protect against external threats – were more likely to approve of the use of nuclear weapons in their scenarios. They also, perhaps unsurprisingly, were more likely to endorse the actions of a leader who had launched a nuclear attack. Even stronger support for nuclear weapons was found among people who value the moral rule of “an eye for eye” – perhaps one of the oldest ethical principles.
People with these binding and retributive values were also less likely to abandon their position as civilian casualties rose. However, they were not indifferent – support for the nuclear option dropped fairly steeply once the casualties exceeded 10,000, and was very low in all groups by the time the death toll reached a million.
All this suggests that it’s impossible to answer whether the use of nuclear weapons is inherently right or wrong – whether they should be taboo or allowed under some circumstances – because it depends on the moral framework of the individual.
For those who would wish to avoid nuclear war, an arguably more important question to ask would be how the aggregate moral views of a nation collectively influence a politician’s choices in the fog of conflict. What matters, says Rathbun, is that public opinion has the power to influence the likelihood of a nuclear launch. “Politicians rely on an intuitive sense about what they think the public will allow,” he says. “They're always operating under a sense of ‘what can I do’ and ‘what can I not do’.”
And as historical trends in polling have shown, public attitudes towards nuclear weapons can shift over time. While support in the US is overall lower than the mid-20th Century, there’s nothing to say that this can’t reverse. One recent study, for example, found that public backing for the ban on US nuclear tests has declined since 2012. Meanwhile, the current US administration is reportedly contemplating a resumption of testing on American soil.
A future leader, with their finger hovering over the nuclear button, will always make their decision under what Rathbun calls a “shadow of morality”.
“The conclusion that's been reached since time immemorial is that international relations is a realm of human interaction devoid of moral content,” he says. “From an evolutionary point of view, I think that's impossible. Human beings just cannot help but moralise.”
"can" - Google News
August 04, 2020 at 02:00PM
https://ift.tt/2EPaoIW
Can nuclear war be morally justified? - BBC News
"can" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2NE2i6G
https://ift.tt/3d3vX4n
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Can nuclear war be morally justified? - BBC News"
Post a Comment