A polemical account of Australian philosophy up to 2003, emphasising its unique aspects (such as commitment to realism) and the connections between philosophers' views and their lives. Topics include early idealism, the dominance of John Anderson in Sydney, the Orr case, Catholic scholasticism, Melbourne Wittgensteinianism, philosophy of science, the Sydney disturbances of the 1970s, Francofeminism, environmental philosophy, the philosophy of law and Mabo, ethics and Peter Singer. Realist theories especially praised are David Armstrong's on universals, David Stove's on logical probability (...) and the ethical realism of Rai Gaita and Catholic philosophers. In addition to strict philosophy, the book treats non-religious moral traditions to train virtue, such as Freemasonry, civics education and the Greek and Roman classics. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The primary aim of the paper is to apply the concept of retribution to nuclear defence policy. Nuclear defence policy, as I conceive it, is concerned with addressing the threat Soviet nuclear weapons pose for Western security. I argue that, contrary to popular opinion, MAD is not a retributive doctrine—that in fact it violates two constitutive principles of retribution: culpability and proportionality. After explicating these constitutive principles, I apply them to retaliatory strategy—showing that the culpability criterion restricts retaliation to (...) the agents of aggression while the proportionality criterion requires a just measure of retaliation. The result is a defence policy continuous with the just war tradition—one which rules out deterrence based on threats against the civilian population. I show why a retributive policy requires non‐nuclear forces and discuss the feasiblity of replacing all nuclear forces with conventional weapons. I anticipate and answer major objections to the denuclearization of U.S. and NATO forces. Finally, I conclude that an advocate of a retributive policy—specifically, a policy calling for a proportional or measured response against combatants only—must be willing, in the name of justice, to accept the risk of making war more thinkable by making it less horrible. (shrink)

W artykule zostanie opisany modelu Specjalnej Sytuacji Odstraszania (SSO) sformułowany przez Gregorego S. Kavkę, a rozpatrywany w kontekście normatywnej teorii decyzji. Wychodząc od analizy jednego z paradoksów odstraszania wynikającego ze wspomnianego modelu, przedstawię różne sposoby rozwiązania problemów które generuje, rozpatrując je w kontekście charakteru intencji, racjonalności, oraz moralności działań podmiotu uwikłanego w SSO. Przedstawię również propozycję rozwiązania wspomnianego paradoksu, oraz wskażę na dodatkowe czynniki wpływające na ocenę etyczną działań, przyjmowania intencji, oraz jej podtrzymywania przez racjonalnego agenta reprezentującego państwo odstraszające.