Gregory S. Kavka

Why Even Morally Perfect People Would Need Government

Why do we need government? A common view is that government is necessary to constrain peoples conduct toward one another, because people are not sufficiently virtuous to exercise the requisite degree of control on their own. This view was expressed perspicuously, and artfully, by liberal thinker James Madison, in The Federalist , number 51, where he wrote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Madisons idea is shared by writers ranging across the political spectrum. It finds clear expression in the Marxist view that the state will gradually wither away after a communist revolution, as unalienated “communist man” emerges. And it is implied by the libertarian view that governments only legitimate function is to control the unfortunate and immoral tendency of some individuals to violate the moral rights of others.

Disability and the Right to Work

It is, perhaps, a propitious time to discuss the economic rights of disabled persons. In recent years, the media in the United States have re-ported on such notable events as: students at the nations only college for the deaf stage a successful protest campaign to have a deaf individual ap-pointed president of their institution; a book by a disabled British physicist on the origins of the universe becomes a best seller; a pitcher with only one arm has a successful rookie season in major league baseball; a motion-picture actor wins an Oscar for his portrayal of a wheelchair-bound person, beating out another nominee playing another wheelchair-bound person; a cancer patient wins an Olympic gold medal in wrestling; a paralyzed mother trains her children to accept discipline by inserting their hands in her mouth to be gently bitten when punishment is due; and a paraplegic rock climber scales the sheer four-thousand-foot wall of Yosemite Valleys El Capitan. Most significantly, in 1990, the United States Congress passed an important bill – the Americans with Disabili-ties Act – extending to disabled people employment and access-related protections afforded to members of other disadvantaged groups by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Deterrence, utility, and rational choice

The nuclear balance of terror is examined from the perspective of utilitarian ethics. A superpowers decision about whether or not to practice nuclear deterrence against its rival is analyzed as a choice, under conditions of uncertainty, between (i) a smaller risk of bringing about a graver disaster for mankind (i.e., nuclear war), and (ii) a greater risk of bringing about a lesser disaster for mankind (i.e., domination by the rival superpower). It is argued that the expected utility and maximin principles cannot very plausibly be applied to problems with this structure, but that a novel principle of rational choice can be. This principle is defended, and is used to reach the conclusion that nuclear deterrence is, from the utilitarian viewpoint, permissible.

Moral Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence.

Preface Introduction Part I. Moral Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence: 1. Some paradoxes of deterrence 2. A paradox of deterrence revisited 3. Deterrence, utility and rational choice 4. Nuclear deterrence: some moral perplexities 5. Dilemmas of nuclear protest Part II. Alternative to Nuclear Deterrence: 6. Unilateral nuclear disarmament 7. World government 8. Strategic defense 9. Nuclear coercion 10. Mutual nuclear disarmament Notes Index.