Description
The Nuclear Age is said to be defined by the notion of existential threat. The ability to destroy human societies in their entirety through the use of a single class of weaponry raises some of the most profound questions about human existence that philosophers have ever grappled with. Unsurprisingly, existentialism is often regarded as being a philosophy that found its feet in the shadow of the bomb. This article explores the possibilities and limits of an existentialist approach to the politics and ethics of addressing nuclear dangers by contrasting the views of two figures central to the founding of existentialism: Jean-Paul Sartre and Raymond Aron. Sartre responded to the existential threat of nuclear war with moral outrage, critique of the “unreality” of the Cold War politics driving the arms race, and the existentialist call to reject societal expectations relating to warfare. Aron, famously rejected existentialism and turned instead to outlining the norms of international society that might restrain the choices of nuclear-armed decision makers. The article argues that the ongoing, and even growing, threats posed by nuclear weapons highlight the limits of Sartre’s approach as a guide to authentic existence in the nuclear age. Instead it argues in favour of Aron’s more conservative approach to strengthening the nuclear taboo for the sake of human survival in the next phase of the Nuclear Age.
