Scholarlink

<p>Michael Haiden argues that Kenneth Waltz’s analysis of nuclear weapons supports Peter-Paul Verbeek’s claim that technological artifacts and human beings are hybrid agents. I disagree with Haiden on at least two points. First, I see no reason to think that nuclear weapons are endowed with positive or negative values. They are neutral means to an end, and—contrary to Haiden’s suggestion—nothing of philosophical significance turns on whether our example is nuclear weapons, guns, or lifesaving medical technologies. Second, even if we believe that nuclear weapons are a particularly illuminating case, we still have no reason to accept Verbeek’s thesis of hybrid agency. The example does not establish that artifacts themselves are agents, nor that agency is literally shared between humans and technological artifacts.</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

Why Nuclear Weapons Are Morally Neutral Means and Humans Bear Full Responsibility for Their Use

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月23日

查看全文
  • Martin Peterson

摘要

Michael Haiden argues that Kenneth Waltz’s analysis of nuclear weapons supports Peter-Paul Verbeek’s claim that technological artifacts and human beings are hybrid agents. I disagree with Haiden on at least two points. First, I see no reason to think that nuclear weapons are endowed with positive or negative values. They are neutral means to an end, and—contrary to Haiden’s suggestion—nothing of philosophical significance turns on whether our example is nuclear weapons, guns, or lifesaving medical technologies. Second, even if we believe that nuclear weapons are a particularly illuminating case, we still have no reason to accept Verbeek’s thesis of hybrid agency. The example does not establish that artifacts themselves are agents, nor that agency is literally shared between humans and technological artifacts.