ABSTRACT
Taking a different cut, this chapter asserts that ethics are at the core of the debate about nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. It examines the claim made by advocates of the Ban: that support for the treaty is a moral obligation separate from the moral argument against nuclear deterrence. The chapter invokes the ethical framework set out by Max Weber a century ago. Writing about “politics as vocation,” Weber made a distinction between two fundamentally different—but equally legitimate—ethics. One he called the ethic of pure intentions and the other the ethic of responsibility. Those who live by the ethic of pure intentions are accountable for their actions to honor an ultimate ambition; the latter are accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. In Roberts’ assessment, the foreseeable consequence of entry into force of the Ban Treaty will not make more proximate the goal of nuclear abolition. Instead, it will deepen the insecurity of the most vulnerable states while eroding the international order. Roberts concludes that those concerned with the consequences of the Ban, as opposed to the morality of nuclear weapons, are under no moral obligation to support it.
