Mr Truman's Degree.

An article that might give this thread some moral guidance.

As long as we are all opposed to death and suffering, advocates of a course of action that causes it have to provide justification.

Is there justification for nuking? If so, is there justification for nuking twice? (Many say no to the second question) The answer would depend on whether the war would have ended without it or them, and if so how costly ending the war would be without using it or them.

Is there justification for nuking? — Down The Rabbit Hole

The idea of bombing civilians with any kind of bomb would strike most sensitive people as immoral. We could stop to consider what we mean by that (or how we use that kind of statement.)

I think the will to destroy other human beings was paramount, not only because they knew such a thing would happen (they ran the tests), but because they knew it would give them an edge in their campaign. They knew it would destroy innocent people, most of whom I assume had never killed any American soldiers. The choice to drop the bomb was no doubt an immoral one.

The logic behind bombing of the civilian population was argued a lot before WW2. The argument for this is that a devastating bombardment would make wars shorter, and hence save lives more.

Italian general Giulio Douhet was one of the most famous air power theorists of the time and he fervently believed in the effect that aerial bombing would have on an enemy population. Hence the war wouldn't drag on like WW1 and actually the death toll would be smaller. People would demand an end to the war when they would be bombed.



The American dilemma and thinking goes quite on the same lines, especially when they already had ample evidence just how stubborn the Japanese would be in defense. The estimates for casualties in Operation Downfall and it's smalle operations, Olympic and Coronet, was to be close to one million. Hence the estimation was about a quarter million US soldiers killed and the war go on perhaps until 1947. With those kinds of estimates, it's not hard to choose an other option like "on the other hand, we have this extremely powerful bomb". If the other choice is quarter of a million dead American soldiers.

Yet Douhet's argument doesn't seem so good when compared to reality in WW2. Usually bombings of civilians didn't brake the will of the people as aerial bombings weren't so effective. The "Blitz" on England made British more willing to see the war to the end and not negotiate a peace (like in 1918). Yet the total war aspect of Douhet's ideas were correct. Bombing is important.

(One famous slogan in Germany during WW2: Our walls will break, but not our hearts.)


For Japan the new bomb simply made it obvious there wouldn't be any way out. The Americans had already killed a lot more with the fire bombing campaign than with the nuclear bombs, yet assuming they could mass produce these weapons, the USAAF could with basically impunity bomb everything in Japan.

Philosophically nuclear weapons are problematic, because what they have been is extremely good at deterrence. And they haven't been used again. There simply hasn't been WW3. But as WW3 hasn't happened, it's impossible say if this has been a product of the "Mutual Assured Destruction" of nuclear weapons or not. If it has been so and if we would have had devastating wars without people being afraid of nuclear weapons, would they have been good?

It's similar with the question of Japan's surrender. Would the war have dragged to 1947 and would have quarter of a million US servicemen died? Who knows.

Anyway, it goes like this: The will to live is amoral. What you do on behalf of your own survival can't be judged as long as you thought you had no alternative. — frank

Well, just imagine yourself in the shoes of President Truman, when he is told about this new bomb alternative.

I think the will to destroy other human beings was paramount, not only because they knew such a thing would happen (they ran the tests), but because they knew it would give them an edge in their campaign. They knew it would destroy innocent people, most of whom I assume had never killed any American soldiers. The choice to drop the bomb was no doubt an immoral one. — NOS4A2

I can definitely respect your viewpoint. Do you think those who made the choice:

a) believed it was wrong
b) believed it was right
c) believed it was amoral
d) rationalized that it was right even though their instincts were that it was wrong

Interesting read as always, thanks!

@Banno
:up:

Cheers. Good to hear at least one person had a look. "Choosing to kill the innocent as a means to an end is always murder". Truman was a murderer.

Good to hear at least one person had a look. "Choosing to kill the innocent as a means to an end is always murder". Truman was a murderer. — Banno

I didn't know about that essay. Cool stuff. Yes, I agree, mass murderer.

The will to live is amoral. — frank

If what you mean is that you want to live, that's fine. "I want to live" says nothing about how you should deal with others, so it says nothing about morality.

What you do on behalf of your own survival can't be judged as long as you thought you had no alternative. — frank

This does not follow from your premise. It doesn't follow because it is about how you treat others, and so has moral content.

Whence that moral content? There's a missing premise, something along the lines of "I may do whatever I want to other people in order to preserve my life". And that is not so.

___________________
But further, it is clear that there were alternatives, that the Allies were winning and that neither Truman nor the allies were in imminent danger of extinction.

So I don't see how what you have said works.

- Anscombe :up:

The idea of bombing civilians with any kind of bomb would strike most sensitive people as immoral. — frank

What if bombing runs where civilians were going to be killed as a by-product, were necessary to win WW2? I don't see evidence that they were, but I think most people would still say they were justified.

I'm guessing the situation in Israel/Gaza is what you and @RogueAI were discussing, or the situation spurred you to this question? Another tough one. For me, I think you have to look at the consequences.

What you do on behalf of your own survival can't be judged as long as you thought you had no alternative.
— frank
This does not follow from your premise. It doesn't follow because it is about how you treat others, and so has moral content.

Whence that moral content? There's a missing premise, something along the lines of "I may do whatever I want to other people in order to preserve my life". And that is not so. — Banno

If you become really hungry, you're likely to go kill a chicken and eat it. Was that moral? If so, what's the logic that dictates that it is? I don't think there is any. By and large morality is something we observe in ourselves and in the world. It's not knowledge we obtain by logical means, although a dose a logic is usually not a bad thing.

What came to me while pondering how morality dances around in my psyche was about how the struggle to survive is raw and blind. We can try to channel it toward the best and most moral paths, but ultimately, it has us. We'll minister to that force with whatever cards we're dealt.

But further, it is clear that there were alternatives, that the Allies were winning and that neither Truman nor the allies were in imminent danger of extinction.

So I don't see how your argument works. — Banno

Sure. So I'll ask you the same question I put to Nos:

Did Truman

a) believe it was wrong
b) believe it was right
c) believe it was amoral
d) rationalize that it was right even though he knew it was wrong

If you don't feel like following me on that, that's fine. I totally understand. I'm bedbound anyway. :grin:

I'm guessing the situation in Israel/Gaza is what you and RogueAI were discussing, or the situation spurred you to this question? Another tough one. — Down The Rabbit Hole

A related question with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict is whether it is illicit to indirectly kill those whom the enemy has taken hostage as human shields; along with the secondary question of whether it makes a difference if the human shield is the enemy's compatriot.

By and large morality is something we observe in ourselves and in the world. — frank

I'm not sure how to understand this. Morality is about what we do. That's why it's something we observe in the world. It can be discussed, and so subjected to logic. Even if " the struggle to survive is raw and blind", ought it be so?

If you don't feel like following me on that, that's fine. — frank

I won't pretend to have special access to Truman's beliefs.

Is there justification for nuking? If so, is there justification for nuking twice? (Many say no to the second question) The answer would depend on whether the war would have ended without it or them, and if so how costly ending the war would be without using it or them.

Yes, that's generally the justification. Also the fact that it might deter a war with the Soviet Union, which seemed quite possible at the time.

But people also question if it was moral for the US to abandon half of Europe to the Soviets with their mass rape, mass brutalization of subject peoples. Particularly the abandonment of Poland, the Baltics, etc., so it goes both ways, "the wars you don't fight," become an issue as well.

Obviously, if a nuclear war had broken out with the Soviets in the 60s-80s, we would look back and say "it would have been the right thing to do to get rid of the USSR when they refused to leave Eastern Europe in the 40s," so it's something that's impossible to know for sure.

I think he knew it was wrong, morally speaking. But I think he believed it was right on utilitarian grounds. Only a utilitarian could eradicate lives in order to save lives. The sense of self-preservation when allied to the promise of a greater good outweighed any moral sense and conscience that may have arisen.

Truman was a murderer. — Banno

Banno, allow me to ask a question out of curiosity.

In Anscombe's early work, such as "Modern Moral Philosophy," she more or less claimed that absolute moral prohibitions are unavailable to those who do not believe in divine law. Now I disagree with her and I would not be surprised to find that she changed her view at a later date, but what is your opinion on this matter? Given what I know about you, you presumably disagree with the claim.

I don't mean to derail. Just a quick question. :grin:

---

- That seems right to me as well.

A related question with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict is whether it is illicit to indirectly kill those whom the enemy has taken hostage as human shields; along with the secondary question of whether the fact that the human shield is the enemy's compatriot makes a difference. — Leontiskos

The second question is an interesting one - think the difference between it being a Palestinian hostage or an Israeli hostage. Would and should both hostages be treated equal?

Anyway, I'll try and stay on topic as there's another thread on Israel/Gaza.

I think it could make a difference. We distinguish combatants from civilians, but then there are murky areas such as civilians who are proximate to the war, producing arms or some such. Thus insofar as someone is associated with the war, they are not a mere civilian. So if a compatriot hostage is more closely associated with the war/fighting than a neutral or opposed hostage, then a relevant difference could arise. What is at stake is probably a form of collectivism, and it may be contingent on whether the compatriot hostage is in general agreement with their possessor's tactics (i.e. if they think to themselves, "I am not opposed to using compatriots as human shields, but don't use me!").

Actually I didn't want to raise a tricky ethical question in that thread, because it is in the Politics and Current Affairs section.

Her argument there is curious... that in order to be under an obligation one must already be operating in the context of laws. But one can place oneself under an obligation. In the end I do not share her certainty as to what god expects from us.

Ah, okay. So could I say that you would follow Kant insofar as he favored self-legislation?

I won't pretend to have special access to Truman's beliefs. — Banno

Yes. Playing with statements is the shallow end of the pool. Trying to understand your fellow humans is the deep end. I already knew your preference. I respect that. It's just not where my interests lie.

Playing with statements is the shallow end of the pool. — frank

Yep. One can keep one's footing. I surmise Truman realised it was immoral, but did it anyway. Would I have done differently? Such contemplations are fraught with equivocation. The morality of the act was probably not high on the agenda at those meetings.

Kant had many odd habits. Perhaps it would be best not to follow him too blindly. I've a liking for Nussbaum, if you need names. Beyond that, Philippa Foot, perhaps.

- :up:

It's similar with the question of Japan's surrender. Would the war have dragged to 1947 and would have quarter of a million US servicemen died? Who knows. — ssu

It is obvious that Japan would have won against the US if Truman hadn't dropped the atomic bombs. To be honest, I think it was a filthy movement from the government of the United States because they were aware that the honourable soul of the Japanese is unbreakable. The kamikaze ('kami' God/ 'kaze' air) were considered martyrs of the glorious Japanese Empire. Yukio Mishima and Shintaro Ishihara wrote a lot of this. Rather than a big destruction, it was a KO in their integrity and self-esteem. They understood that after a nuclear bomb, they would not be able to face the USA again militarily. Fortunately, the Japanese soul of working hard and improving continuously didn't change.

The beautiful Hiroshima nowadays:

Well, just imagine yourself in the shoes of President Truman, when he is told about this new bomb alternative. — ssu

Now, imagine ourselves in Hirohito's shoes afterwards. Japanese folks have always believed that the royal family were holy, and they were treated like deities. After losing WWII, there were a lot of changes to the Japanese constitution: the Emperor no longer had the treatment of holy; Japan lost their army, and Japanese foreign principle is resolve conflicts using peace. Conclusion: the USA erased the Samurai soul of Japan... this is what bothers me the most. Well, the ministers of defence and military authorities committed seppuku after losing the war because of the shame they felt about themselves. Amazing. This kind of honour is impossible to see in the Western world. For example: when the Republicans lost the Civil War here, they fled to France or Argentina. :roll:

the USA erased the Samurai soul of Japan... — javi2541997

Ah yes, the Samurai soul of beheading prisoners, and having thousands of civilians committ suicide for no reason.

So sad that it's gone.

But people also question if it was moral for the US to abandon half of Europe to the Soviets with their mass rape, mass brutalization of subject peoples. Particularly the abandonment of Poland, the Baltics, etc., so it goes both ways, "the wars you don't fight," become an issue as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It would be an interesting question whether one could justify dropping the bombs on Japan in order to avoid a Soviet occupation, but that requires hindsight that the people making the decision did not have.

It is obvious that Japan would have won against the US if Truman hadn't dropped the atomic bombs. — javi2541997

Uh...how on Earth???

Besides, the atomic bombs weren't that different to the fire bombings: it doesn't matter actually for you on the ground if it's one bomber or three hundred of bombers. The 9th-10th of March 1945 bombing of Tokyo killed 100 000 people and left one million homeless. When you have those hundreds of Superfortresses, what's the difficulty even without an atomic bomb?

(remains of people in Tokyo after the fire bombing)

The kamikaze ('kami' God/ 'kaze' air) were considered martyrs of the glorious Japanese Empire. Yukio Mishima and Shintaro Ishihara wrote a lot of this. — javi2541997

Yukio Mishima is the perfect example here. He made his "coup" and tried to get Japanese soldiers of the Self Defence Forces to stage a revolution. They mocked him. Mishima stopped after few minutes and then took his own life.

Both Japan and Germany are example just how thin in the end the layer of fanaticism is. Total defeat makes it impossible to live in denial. Some in an society can be ardent believers, but the majority simply adapts to the prevailing situation. And the majority will also adapt when the situation changes.

The Germans didn't commit mass suicide after their Third Reich lost. And the "Werwolf" units designated to continue an insurgency simply didn't come to be. Yet even to this day the whole chapter has had a profound effect of the German psyche and you have the occasional "Hitler-Welle" in Germany asking how it all was possible. Japan changed dramatically it's policies too. Perhaps it has now Hiroshima to reflect the worst guilt of WW2 and can picture itself as a victim too.

Yukio Mishima is the perfect example here. He made his "coup" and tried to get Japanese soldiers of the Self Defence Forces to stage a revolution. They mocked him. Mishima stopped after few minutes and then took his own life. — ssu

Well, Mishima committed seppuku after losing the last hope he had in Japanese society. He knew that after the nuclear attacks, Japan would be a different country and even the Japanese citizens felt ashamed of themselves. There is a good quote by him: 'If Japan had won the war, Japanese youngsters would go to Kabuki theatre. But the Americans are the ones who won, so they go to dance at Jazz clubs instead' This quote perfectly represents the impact of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, being an immoral murder, it has nearly vanished a millennial culture.

Mishima even stated in some essays that 'corruption' and 'representatives' in a Parliament are just a Western thing and Japan was poisoned with these elements. He had nostalgia about living in a Samurai era where honour and loyalty were the pillars of Japan: 'Bushidō' He was right in terms that, after Japan becoming a 'modern' nation, they had to face big social problems: the middle-class way of life - capitalism - and, yes, corruption. Nonetheless, the roots of Japanese honorary culture remain, because when a case of corruption arises, the average politician resigns. An example: Japan's Olympic minister resigns over Fukushima gaffe

Do you know what is the worst? That a great part of modern Japanese society feel ashamed of their past and values for not letting them win the war, and post-changes were necessary to become a 'Western' alike modern nation...

Mishima even stated in some essays that 'corruption' and 'representatives' in a Parliament are just a Western thing and Japan was poisoned with these elements. He had nostalgia about living in a Samurai era where honour and loyalty were the pillars of Japan: 'Bushidō' He was right in terms that, after Japan becoming a 'modern' nation, they had to face big social problems: the middle-class way of life - capitalism - and, yes, corruption. — javi2541997

Nostalgia,

Muslim extremists have that nostalgia too: everything bad that is happening in their society is the product of the West and people mimicking the West. Everything good and pure was then when you had the actual Caliphate, or when Muhammad himself was ruling the Ummah. How could it have been anything than paradise then? Hence to show their devotion an piety, some extremists use only small pieces of wood toothpicks to brush their teeth because at the time of the Prophet, they used them.

Not only are these kinds of nostalgia silly, but as in the muslim example simply ruinous and deadly for many countries. I would consider it populist nostalgia. Not only were things better in the past, but thanks to the evil leaders and their diabolical agenda against us (the people), we are forced to give away that better past.

Yet I guess many in the West are excited about critique of the West given by non-western people like Mishima. Yet the majority of Japanese, just like the soldiers that mocked Mishima, understand how this kind of nostalgia paints a fantasy picture. And the idea that Mishima and other nostalgic conservative paint of the "true" culture of a nation or it's people dismisses just how creative culture is. Cultures have always taken influences from other cultures.

I have a daughter that has put all over her room pictures of Japanese cartoons, Manga, of cute puppies and always wants to go to the store with Japanese merchandise. So don't say to me that Japanese culture is somehow dead. It's very alive and influential. And if Samurai warriors don't walk around armed to the teeth in Japanese cities anymore, it hardly isn't an example of cultural decadence.

Do you know what is the worst? That a great part of modern Japanese society feel ashamed of their past and values for not letting them win the war, and post-changes were necessary to become a 'Western' alike modern nation... — javi2541997

And some Germans think highly of mr Hitler too. But I wouldn't say that there's really many of them.

I think many Japanese are proud of what they have made of their Island nation compared to other Asian nations. As usually, many of us have that nostalgia for a time when everything was more simple, yet our rosy ideas usually forget the negative aspects of life which were present.