Abolition of Nuclear Weapons as a Moral Imperative argues that the use of nuclear weapons as a threat in policies of nuclear deterrence violate basic principles of morality and consequently the abolition of nuclear weapons from the world is a moral imperative nations that have them. The focus is on the United States since it will have to take the lead in any program of abolition. The argument is formulated in terms accessible to theorists in different disciplines and activists in a large range of causes. It appeals to principles that are widely shared but whose application to national policies, especially to deterrence by threats of mass destruction, has been debated ever since nuclear weapons were developed. The book explains what is meant by the "immorality" of a national policy, the stake which citizens have in their agents acting morally and the role of their opinions in seeing that they do. The argument of the book is couched in terms of consequences. The effects of the U.S.'s nuclear deterrent on the probability of nuclear war are difficult to calculate; but the harms for the country and others across the globe caused by the immense apparatus necessary to make U.S. threats credible are sufficient to condemn the policy. The last part of the book is devoted to way the U.S. can take the lead in safe and effective steps necessary to abolish the weapons and prevent their reintroduction into the world.

John Kultgen explores the ways morality and professional ideals are connected. In assessing the moral impact of professionalism in our society, he examines both the structure and organization of occupations and the ideals and ideology associated with them. Differing from standard treatments of professional ethics, "Ethics and Professionalism" recognizes that it is the practices within the professions that determine whether rules and ideals are used as masks for self-interest or for genuinely moral purposes. "This book provides a functional analysis of what it means to be a profession or a professional society."--"Journal of Mass Media Ethics"

The basic relationship between people should be one of care, and the caring life is the highest which humans can live. Unfortunately, care that is ill-considered can easily become an illegitimate intrusion on autonomy. Autonomy is a basic good, not to be abridged without good reason. It is not, on the other hand, the only good. Kultgen argues that it is sometimes necessary to intervene in the lives of others in order to protect them from harm or provide important benefits. Guidelines, therefore, must be established so that care is both respectful and balanced. Some contemporary moralists categorically condemn paternalism, the forementioned intervention without consent. Kultgen examines weaknesses in these arguments and proposes new guidelines for paternalism, which he then names parentalism. As the term implies, Kultgen's reconception abandons the patriarchal connotations of the old term, relying instead on the optimal caring roles characteristic of "mothers" and "fathers". Kultgen distinguishes between the personal sphere of interaction (i.e., friends, family, and intimates), and the public sphere of institutions, legislation, and the professional practices, and goes on to explore the implication of parentalism in both these spheres. Though Kultgen agrees that paternalistic intervention is morally dangerous, he makes the case that it is equally dangerous to decline to intervene when another's welfare is in jeopardy.