Scholarlink

<p> I defend my analysis of Kenneth Waltz’s position against two points of criticism. First, my view that Waltz proposes a “hybrid account” of moral agency applies to fewer phenomena than a human-centered explanation. However, I show that this is by design. Waltz exclusively writes about international relations, which, as a special field of inquiry, requires distinct explanations. Second, even though technological artifacts shape human moral agency, they are not moral agents themselves. I agree with this point, but note that we should not underestimate how drastically the mere existence of nuclear weapons has shaped human moral responsibility.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reply to Peterson: How Nuclear Weapons Change Moral Responsibility

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月12日

查看全文
  • Michael Haiden

摘要

I defend my analysis of Kenneth Waltz’s position against two points of criticism. First, my view that Waltz proposes a “hybrid account” of moral agency applies to fewer phenomena than a human-centered explanation. However, I show that this is by design. Waltz exclusively writes about international relations, which, as a special field of inquiry, requires distinct explanations. Second, even though technological artifacts shape human moral agency, they are not moral agents themselves. I agree with this point, but note that we should not underestimate how drastically the mere existence of nuclear weapons has shaped human moral responsibility.