... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... ... more ... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... suggests that just war theory may have some prob-lems with humanitarian intervention, suggesting that ... but at the same time no basis for denying that preventive intervention is justified. ...
In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populi... more In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populism. We see vividly every day the impact that populism is having on democratic practice, but what about its effect on democratic theory? An eruption of populism is a permanent possibility in representative democracies, and this causes serious trouble for two leading types of democratic theory, deliberative democracy and aggregative democracy. If my arguments are correct, we may be left without a normative democracy theory that satisfies basic moral requirements.
Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality ... more Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality paradox:(RP) (1) While it is a rational policy to threaten nuclear retaliation against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons, it would not be rational to carry out the retaliation should the threat fail to deter; and (2) what would not be rational to do is not, in the circumstances characteristic of nuclear deterrence, rational to threaten to do.This is a paradox in the standard sense that it involves contradictory claims, for it implies that adopting a policy of nuclear deterrence is both rational and not rational, yet we have strong reason to believe that each of the claims is true. Claim (1) is a recognition that, though we believe nuclear deterrence works, there would seem to be no reason to carry out the threat if it were to fail. Claim (2) is part of the logic of all forms of deterrence, military and nonmilitary, and it relates to the important notion of credibility: if an opponen...
Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and gov... more Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and governments need to compete on a global scale in order to survive. Are there down-sides to globalization? Steven Lee argues that globalization can lead to loss of self-determination and vulnerability to international economic forces. While the loss of control is mainly economic, Lee points out that it can also be political, legal, and cultural, as well. Also, at least in the short run, the rich nations may get richer and the poor nations poorer. The question then becomes, is globalization still worth it, or should some regions secede economically (pull out of WTO, NAFTA, EU) in order to regain self-control? Lee considers the philosophical bases upon which regions or governments may opt to secede.
... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A h... more ... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A has no intention to kill innocent persons, and ... Hare, "Credibility and Bluff," in Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions, ed. Avner Cohen and Steven Lee (Totowa ...
The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly... more The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly short period of time. The debate began less than six years ago when President Reagan initiated the SDI by setting forth a noble moral vision for the role of strategic defenses. The end of the debate has been signaled by the recent news report that the Pentagon is now promoting the SDI for its capacity to destroy Soviet satellites.1 This concludes the moral debate on an unfortunate note. The history of the SDI is a tale of moral decline. Because the debate, if not the program itself, is at an end, this is an appropriate time to reflect on what it has taught us. There are three lessons to be drawn from the moral debate. The first is the somewhat surprising lesson that morality counts in the area of military policy. The second lesson is less surprising. It is that the fundamental moral problem posed by nuclear weapons remains intractable. The third lesson is that, despite claims to the con...
... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... ... more ... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... suggests that just war theory may have some prob-lems with humanitarian intervention, suggesting that ... but at the same time no basis for denying that preventive intervention is justified. ...
In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populi... more In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populism. We see vividly every day the impact that populism is having on democratic practice, but what about its effect on democratic theory? An eruption of populism is a permanent possibility in representative democracies, and this causes serious trouble for two leading types of democratic theory, deliberative democracy and aggregative democracy. If my arguments are correct, we may be left without a normative democracy theory that satisfies basic moral requirements.
Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality ... more Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality paradox:(RP) (1) While it is a rational policy to threaten nuclear retaliation against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons, it would not be rational to carry out the retaliation should the threat fail to deter; and (2) what would not be rational to do is not, in the circumstances characteristic of nuclear deterrence, rational to threaten to do.This is a paradox in the standard sense that it involves contradictory claims, for it implies that adopting a policy of nuclear deterrence is both rational and not rational, yet we have strong reason to believe that each of the claims is true. Claim (1) is a recognition that, though we believe nuclear deterrence works, there would seem to be no reason to carry out the threat if it were to fail. Claim (2) is part of the logic of all forms of deterrence, military and nonmilitary, and it relates to the important notion of credibility: if an opponen...
Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and gov... more Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and governments need to compete on a global scale in order to survive. Are there down-sides to globalization? Steven Lee argues that globalization can lead to loss of self-determination and vulnerability to international economic forces. While the loss of control is mainly economic, Lee points out that it can also be political, legal, and cultural, as well. Also, at least in the short run, the rich nations may get richer and the poor nations poorer. The question then becomes, is globalization still worth it, or should some regions secede economically (pull out of WTO, NAFTA, EU) in order to regain self-control? Lee considers the philosophical bases upon which regions or governments may opt to secede.
... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A h... more ... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A has no intention to kill innocent persons, and ... Hare, "Credibility and Bluff," in Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions, ed. Avner Cohen and Steven Lee (Totowa ...
The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly... more The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly short period of time. The debate began less than six years ago when President Reagan initiated the SDI by setting forth a noble moral vision for the role of strategic defenses. The end of the debate has been signaled by the recent news report that the Pentagon is now promoting the SDI for its capacity to destroy Soviet satellites.1 This concludes the moral debate on an unfortunate note. The history of the SDI is a tale of moral decline. Because the debate, if not the program itself, is at an end, this is an appropriate time to reflect on what it has taught us. There are three lessons to be drawn from the moral debate. The first is the somewhat surprising lesson that morality counts in the area of military policy. The second lesson is less surprising. It is that the fundamental moral problem posed by nuclear weapons remains intractable. The third lesson is that, despite claims to the con...
Uploads
Papers by Steven Lee