Stephen Nathanson – författare

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

The death penalty issue has become the epitome of the unresolvable issue, the question which people answer on the basis of gut reactions rather than logical arguments. In the second edition of An Eye for an Eye? Stephen Nathanson evaluates arguments for and against the death penalty, and ultimately defends an abolitionist position to the controversial practice, including arguments that show how and why the dealth penalty is inconsistent with respect for life and a commitment to justice. A timely new postscript and an updated bibliography accompany the volume.

Is patriotism a worthy ideal, one that we ought to promote and support? Or is it a dangerous and destructive notion that leads to war and hostility? Patriotism, Morality, and Peace provides the first sustained philosophical treatment of these questions, distinguishes different forms of patriotism, and shows why some forms are indeed dangerous, while others can be valuable and constructive.

Stephen Nathanson's clear-sighted abridgment of Principles of Political Economy, Mill's first major work in moral and political philosophy, provides a challenging, sometimes surprising account of Mill's views on many important topics: socialism, population, the status of women, the cultural bases of economic productivity, the causes and possible cures of poverty, the nature of property rights, taxation, and the legitimate functions of government. Nathanson cuts through the dated and less relevant sections of this large work and includes significant material omitted in other editions, making it possible to see the connections between the views Mill expressed in Principles of Political Economy and the ideas he defended in his later works, particularly On Liberty. Indeed, studying Principles of Political Economy, Nathanson argues in his general Introduction, can help to resolve the apparent contradiction between Mill's views in On Liberty and those in Utilitarianism, making it a key text for understanding Mill’s philosophy as a whole.

Lawyers use non-trial advocacy skills in court for pre- and post-trial submissions. They are easier to learn than trial advocacy skills, and are much more relevant to the work of most new lawyers.This book examines all key aspects of criminal and civil non-trial advocacy, including bail applications, pleas in mitigation and interim applications made during the course of civil actions. Readers will learn the strategies and techniques of non-trial advocacy through seven realistic case studies: the lawyers involved discuss their strategies and deliver their arguments; the judge makes a decision; and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments are then analyzed.With this innovative, case study approach to teaching advocacy skills, Non-Trial Advocacy provides an insight into how lawyers think and how they translate their strategies into courtroom action. The book concludes with a discussion of ethical conflicts involved in the practice of advocacy and how these affect the quality of lawyers' work in this field.

Lawyers use non-trial advocacy skills in court for pre- and post-trial submissions. They are easier to learn than trial advocacy skills, and are much more relevant to the work of most new lawyers.This book examines all key aspects of criminal and civil non-trial advocacy, including bail applications, pleas in mitigation and interim applications made during the course of civil actions. Readers will learn the strategies and techniques of non-trial advocacy through seven realistic case studies: the lawyers involved discuss their strategies and deliver their arguments; the judge makes a decision; and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments are then analyzed.With this innovative, case study approach to teaching advocacy skills, Non-Trial Advocacy provides an insight into how lawyers think and how they translate their strategies into courtroom action. The book concludes with a discussion of ethical conflicts involved in the practice of advocacy and how these affect the quality of lawyers' work in this field.

This book attempts to evaluate the challenges to rationality by examining its different interpretations and by trying to establish which, if any, of these provides an understanding which makes a life of reason clearly desirable. Nathanson's conclusion is that while critics of rationality are wrong to reject it, they are correct in rejecting some very influential conceptions of rationality. Although "The Ideal of Rationality" deals with crucial philosophical issues in a rigorous manner, it aims to be accessible to a wide audience. It therefore provides an introduction to current philosophical debates about rationality. Professor Nathanson examines and criticises the classical conception of rationality, derived from Plato, in the light of ideas which emerge from a scrutiny of two novels by John Barth, "The End of the Road" and "The Floating Opera". After analysing such conspicuous rational values as deliberation, objectivity, knowledge and truth, Nathanson concludes that classical rationalists have over-valued purely cognitive activities, while ignoring other important aspects of human life, and he defends William James's thesis that practical benefits can provide reasons for belief.Different notions of rationality - such as the means-end conception, hedonism, and the "evil-avoidance" view - are examined and rejected, in favour of the theory that to act rationally is to "act for the best", a theory Nathanson characterises as "critical pluralism". Among present-day philosophers discussed are Richard Brandt, Bernard Gert, Gilbert Harman, John Kekes, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls. This is a revised, updated and expanded version of the work which appeared in 1985. Nathanson's revisions include discussions of relativism and scepticism.