Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:24:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
611 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the
> > > case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their
> > > subjective judgment of us?
> >
> > Well that's the crux of the hole in my argument.
>
> Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't
> think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a
> moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless
> your ends are specifically moral. And further it also doesn't play into
> whether the action was a terrorist act or not.
I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means. Here's my
view If the end was intended to be moral, but it is achieved by immoral
actions (immoral in this usage means bad morals, not amoral) it comes out
immoral anyway. If the end was intended to be immoral, no amount of moral
(humane, good, etc. taken in the smaller context of specific to that action)
actions can make the end moral.
So terrorism, I think, by definition, is immoral, and taints the outcome of
whatever it supports.
That by the way puts the onus on me more than ever to demonstrate that the
a-bomb usage wasn't terrorism and wasn't immoral, else our "good" taking on
the Axis "evil" is tainted nonetheless as not completely moral.
I just dug that hole a little deeper. But I had to to keep honest.
> Really, it's the hole in your morality argument (which I love getting into
> *anyway*, but isn't "necessary" at the moment), and arguably the hole in
> your "there is no God" argument, but that's ok. You've freely admitted such.
> Quite frankly, I think it's swerving the real issue here to turn this into a
> moral question, until one evaluates our other options in WWII, assuming we
> had some (I.E. that it WASN'T a necessary action).
>
> So I'll ask again, to what end were the bombings "necessary?" What
> specifically was there to be accomplished in which dropping a-bombs was the
> only solution? And to that end, were any other options we may have had any
> better? THERE's where morality jumps into the picture. And that's where we
> can agree to disagree.
What calculus do you use here? Is a US life == an enemy alien life? or is it
worth more, if you're the US commander? How much more? What ratio?
We were at war with an implacable enemy that was refusing to surrender
unconditionally (a prerequisite for restructuring the country so it would
not bother others with violent aggression for a very long time, something we
have succeeded at) and that gave every sign of planning to fight hand to
hand, house to house, in support of a warrior cult that admitted no wrong
for the monstrous evil they had perpetrated throughout their "Greater East
Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere".
I remain as convinced as ever that this was the calculus going through
Truman's mind and that he did not see 500,000 or so enemy alien lives as
worth MORE than the 1 M or more US GI lives (and some large number of enemy
alien lives as well) that would be spent pursueing the conventional course,
and that this equation, to him at the time, with the info he had at that
time, was a valid one to weigh, with the correct coefficients.
When you factor what the perfidious Soviets were going to be doing at the
time as well, the equation tips even farther.
I remain as convinced as ever that the decisions one must make during war
are extremely terrible burdens on leaders of free societies who have
consciences. Sending your own soldiers to their certain deaths every day
cannot be an easy thing, however needful that decision is. Ordering actions
that will result in enemy alien deaths as well cannot be an easy thing
either. Nevertheless I see the use of these weapons as the most expedient
and effective way to have ended the suffering of WW II, and not as a
terrorist act.
Dan's reference site presents evidence that there were other solutions, but
that evidence, provided well after the fact in many cases (but not all) is
not compelling. Not at all. It is more along the lines of monday morning
quarterbacking. Yet I still think the site is a good reference even though I
wrote of my misgivings about its objectivity.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) In your defense, though, I would assert that it's not necessary (possible?) to be completely moral. However, in a field of several choices, the greatest "net good" outcome is preferable to less "net good" outcomes. We can be criticized after (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Exactly correct-- my point was that I'm not sure I understand what ends you believe were intended. If the end was "to scare the Japanese" rather than "to have Japan surrender", then yes, I agree that the bombing may have been necessary. I just (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless your ends are (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
