Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This reply analyzes Waltz’s view on moral agency in international relations, highlighting the influence of nuclear weapons.
I defend my analysis of Kenneth Waltz’s position against two points of criticism. First, my view that Waltz proposes a “hybrid account” of moral agency applies to fewer phenomena than a human-centered explanation. However, I show that this is by design. Waltz exclusively writes about international relations, which, as a special field of inquiry, requires distinct explanations. Second, even though technological artifacts shape human moral agency, they are not moral agents themselves. I agree with this point, but note that we should not underestimate how drastically the mere existence of nuclear weapons has shaped human moral responsibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Haiden (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: