Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[YSSMAN]

So "Kill everyone under 10 (years of age)" is nice?

US points to Japanese action in Nanking...

We've done a lot of terrible stuff around the world, and by no means do I advocate that American policy in South America, the Middle-East, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc is anywhere near as "good" as so many believe it to be. Certainly we have done plenty of great things, we've done some terrible things as well.

What I was referring to is that in comparison to the Monroe Doctrine, the Japanese had (crap, what was it called?) *that thing* which basically stated the same ideology; Keep the west out of Asia, this is our territory to control. Exactly the same as what the US had done with South America, telling Europe to stay out of our backyard...

The difference here is that Japan was far more, shall we say, "direct" with their abuses of power in Asia, particularly in regards to their actions in Manchuria and Korea. The US did do much the same thing under some circumstances, however, it could be argued that through subversion with the CIA and NSC, it was a completely different deal... Nevertheless same bad stuff.

Again, as to whether or not Japan "deserved" the bombings because of it, I think thats a resounding no. But certainly, I think some could have justified it because of those actions.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

US points to Japanese action in Nanking...

Japanese point to US action in Phillipines. (From beginning of hostilities on February 4, 1899 to July 4, 1902 when Roosevelt declared the Phillipines "pacified"; more than 250,000 Filipinos - men, women, and children - dead.)

We've done a lot of terrible stuff around the world, and by no means do I advocate that American policy in South America, the Middle-East, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc is anywhere near as "good" as so many believe it to be. Certainly we have done plenty of great things, we've done some terrible things as well.

What I was referring to is that in comparison to the Monroe Doctrine, the Japanese had (crap, what was it called?) *that thing* which basically stated the same ideology; Keep the west out of Asia, this is our territory to control.

I believe you are referring to the "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

The difference here is that Japan was far more, shall we say, "direct" with their abuses of power in Asia, particularly in regards to their actions in Manchuria and Korea. The US did do much the same thing under some circumstances, however, it could be argued that through subversion with the CIA and NSC, it was a completely different deal... Nevertheless same bad stuff.

I disagree. American action in the Philippines at the start of the century was just as "direct", vicious, and cruel as that of the Japanese some 30 years later.

 

[YSSMAN]

And like I've said, we as Americans can't outright say that "we're perfect and get to call the shots" because of examples of atrocities like that. It just depends on how well you can ignore what we've done...

 

[Danoff]

Oh, puuhlease. Who, besides you, seriously believes that our values/beliefs have not changed over the centuries, even decades, past?

I didn't say values haven't changed, I said morality is not subjective.

I suppose we should all have retained, for example, the Victorian morality of ages ago? Your morality, Danoff, may not change - nor should the morality change of any respectful person. But to say that morality doesn't change from generation to generation, over time and culture, is simply not historically acurate.

It's not subjective. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. Whether or not the US was just in dropping bombs on nagasaki and hiroshima is not dependent on when the bombs were dropped, or the cultural environment of the time. It was justified, but not by any sort of prevailing values.

I'm against violence of any kind

Wow. That's almost certainly not true. So you would never use violence to defend yourself against an attacker?

It was morally wrong to drop the bombs. Violence, especially on that scale, is not only morally wrong but is also counter-productive to the survival of our species.

It's not so simple as you make it out to be. You can't just say "violence is wrong" and be done with the whole morality argument - because sometimes violence is not wrong. Sometimes violence is just. Sometimes a lack of violence is immoral.

But let's not pretend that our nations morality, or any culture's morality, does not change over time.

Perhaps you/society think it changes, but morality is independent of national origin, culture, or time. (I've created a thread about this. It's not far down the list. Look for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way")

Can you say '60's. Today, networks won't allow cigarette smoking on TV as they did in the past, but it's okay if South Park drops a few "bombs."

That's not morality.

Morality falls and rises with hemlines, cleavage shoots and our tolerance for violence.

That's not morality. That's social acceptability.

And for doG's sake, don't look for your daily dose of righteous morality Sunday mornings. I seriously doubt that the Japanese have the same values/beliefs or morality as that of Americans. But I'm sure that each culture's morality will change over time.

Values/Beliefs != Morality

We obviously have different definitions for morality. To me, moral behavior is behavior conforming with objective justice. I suppose if you define it to be behavior conforming with prevailing social or cultural beliefs, then you're right, morality will change over time - but then your definition of morality no longer applies to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings and you shouldn't have used that word in this discussion.

 

[ProTron]

No, I'm saying that morality doesn't change over time or culture.

You did in fact say that morality does not change.

 

[Danoff]

You did in fact say that morality does not change.

Yes...

 

[ProTron]

It would seem we do differ on the meaning of "morality." I believe it relates to our ethics and conscience of what is right or wrong. The expression of that is our conduct.

 

[Danoff]

It would seem we do differ on the meaning of "morality." I believe it relates to our ethics and conscience of what is right or wrong. The expression of that is our conduct.

Right and wrong are objective. (see the thread I pointed you to earlier)

How can it be right for people to be bombed one year, and wrong the next?

 

[ProTron]

How can it be right for people to be bombed one year, and wrong the next?

I personally cannot see how it can be right one year and wrong the next. But, clearly, it was considered right enough for enough people within our past administration to do so. And today, that decision is still debated. So, something has changed. I doubt our present administration would be able to do the same in today's environment - political and moral. So, it would seem something, perhaps our morality, has indeed changed.

 

[Danoff]

I personally cannot see how it can be right one year and wrong the next. But, clearly, it was considered right enough for enough people within our past administration to do so.

So you're saying that it doesn't make sense to you that morality is subjective, but that's just the way it is?

And today, that decision is still debated. So, something has changed. I doubt our present administration would be able to do the same in today's environment - political and moral. So, it would seem something, perhaps our morality, has indeed changed.

Popular opinion does not change whether it was moral because morality is not defined by popular opinion. At least not any definition of morality that causes it to pertain the the ethics of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki discussion.

 

[ProTron]

Right and wrong are objective. (see the thread I pointed you to earlier)

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. Right and wrong can be, and often is, interpreted differently depending upon the audience. So, it's subjective for the most part and possibly objective for the minor part.

So you're saying that it doesn't make sense to you that morality is subjective, but that's just the way it is?

Exactly.

Popular opinion does not change whether it was moral because morality is not defined by popular opinion. At least not any definition of morality that causes it to pertain the the ethics of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki discussion.

Morality is defined by popular opinion. You, yourself, as you have stated, have your own opinon on the definition of morality which is not shared by all.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. Right and wrong can be, and often is, interpreted differently depending upon the audience. So, it's subjective for the most part and possibly objective for the minor part.

See the thread I pointed you to earlier.

Exactly.

That doesn't bother you?

Morality is defined by popular opinion. You, yourself, as you have stated, have your own opinon on the definition of morality which is not shared by all.

I said that we might have different ideas about what concepts the word morality is referring to. That's not the same thing as saying that the concept itself is subjective - only the terminology. I also said that if your concept is to define morality "by popular opinion" then your usage of the term has no business in this discussion.

 

[Touring Mars]

I personally cannot see how it can be right one year and wrong the next. But, clearly, it was considered right enough for enough people within our past administration to do so. And today, that decision is still debated. So, something has changed. I doubt our present administration would be able to do the same in today's environment - political and moral. So, it would seem something, perhaps our morality, has indeed changed.

I'd say the main thing that has changed is nuclear proliferation - at the time, the US were the only ones with the bomb... today, the nuclear options are extremely different.

As for Danoff's debate about morality being objective, I don't think it is objective either... the phrase Sureshot used earlier, "a necessary evil" is a paradox that highlights the difficulty in describing morality in absolute terms. It is always going to depend on the eye of the beholder to some (perhaps even a great) extent...

I may be getting the wrong end of the stick in this debate as well, but there is always opposing ways of perceiving the exact same event... a man injects an elderly man with a lethal dose of Potassium Chloride and kills him. The morality of the situation is dependent on the motive, not the event... if the motive was to bump off a business partner and inherit the business, then the act was immoral. If the motive was a mercy killing for a terminally ill loved-one, then arguably the act was moral - and there are as many shades of grey between those extremes. The question is, how can an outsider know for certain (not just judge) what the motive was, and hence how would you know for certain whether any act is moral or immoral?

 

[Danoff]

The question is, how can an outsider know for certain (not just judge) what the motive was, and hence how would you know for certain whether any act is moral or immoral?

I never said an outsider could know whether it was moral. Only that it wasn't subjective.

The morality of the situation is dependent on the motive, not the event

I agree wholeheartedly. A more obvious example is that of a pedestrian struck by a car. If it's an accident, it's amoral. If it's purposeful, it could be immoral.

 

[ProTron]

See the thread I pointed you to earlier.

I do not mean to be rude, Danoff, but if that post is anything similar to your current style of discussion, I am simply not interested in reading it. I have noticed your discussions start out fine. Seemingly well thought out and presented. However, as the rest of our community chime in with their thoughts, suppositions and counter proposals, things seem to get a bit too much for you to handle. When the going gets too hot for you, you then dismiss their ideas by the infantile method of simply redefining the key terms or concepts within your original argument. In this particular case, you have kindly “volunteered” your definition of morality as the status quo.

I am sorry, but if we are going to have a decent discussion, you cannot simply impose your definition of the core terms of a discussion in order to suit your views. That is not a productive debate at all. In this case, you are just being stubborn and unwilling to admit to other possibilities. It is okay to have a constructive argument, but, again, let us not fabricate definitions of the term that we are discussing, simply to justify our position on the issue.

Now, I am going to retire from active participation in this debate. However, because I am a middle school teacher and a single mother of two, I will continue to observe as I am interested in the concept of morality, especially in today's world.

And to TM, thank you.

 

[Famine]

Danoff hasn't changed or redefined anything - and is completely right. See the Truth, Justice and the American Way thread.

Morality cannot be subjective. Morality must be absolute - and thus objective. You cannot have popular opinion defining morality.

I struggle to avoid Godwin's Law at this point, but seeing as we're talking about the era, from 1933-1945 popular opinion in Germany was that Jews, homosexuals and disabled people were less than human. From your post above, you would seem to be arguing that, within the sovereign borders of Germany, it was moral to not treat Jews, homosexuals and the disabled as humans - popular opinion defining morality.

Say the elected government of Upper Fundistania passes a vote which says women cannot work, get any school education and should be whipped three times daily. The government is elected based on popular vote and the vote of the government is representative of popular opinion. Is it moral that women can't work or get schooled and get whipped? "Morality is defined by popular vote" would argue that it is.


What is moral cannot be subjective. However morals are breached and rights subjugated all the time by even elected governments, representing the majority. What is legal is subjective. But, as Danoff's signature says, the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority - at least not without breaching morality.


On the topic, you must ask yourself which, given the inevitable outcome of Japan's defeat, of the two conclusions would be the least immoral.
1. A prolonged campaign against Japan over many months (maybe years) - blanket bombing and a ground invasion with projected 7-figure Japanese (military and civilian) and 6 figure American (troop) casualties, resulting in occupation and subjugation.
2. Two shock events resulting in 6-figure Japanese (military and civilian) and 0 American casualties, permitting the Japanese leadership to retain effective control without occupation - and with the side-effect that the deadliest weapons ever conceived are never used again in conflict.


One of the two would have happened - either continued conventional warfare until there weren't enough Japanese people left to form a soccer team, never mind a war, or "Bang, and the war is gone". Which is the least unpalatable?

How many lives do you think were not extinguished thanks to Hiroshima and Nagasaki showing us just what the consequences of a nuke were? Imagine if the first nuke in "combat" had been a Russian launch from Cuba on Manhattan instead...

 

[niky]

No, I'm saying that morality doesn't change over time or culture.

I don't define my morality by the prevailing culture of the time. That notion renders morality right out of existence.

Oooooohkay.

While we've often been across the fence from each other, I've often respected you for your objectivity, Danoff... if not for your obstinacy... ...but I do respect you as a debater and accept your obstinacy, because you often make good points... but here's something I can't figure:

The problem with defining morality as being the difference between right and wrong... and saying this is objective and not subjective... you have to define: "What is right?"

Morality is not just defined by motive, because if we go down that slippery slope, we have mass murderers whose motives would surely exonerate them from their crimes.

Morality is definable as such: (taking from some random page off the internet... oh... Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia...)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The second definition is probably what most of us would agree upon... it's apparently the one you believe in, since you state that morality does not change, but by the first definition, which relates to the cultural aspect of morality, yes, morality may change with time and culture and from individual to individual.

But even if we consider that morality should be rationally arrived at by thinking individuals, while the moral guidelines that guide "rational" individuals may remain constant... for argument's sake... let's say that "life" is a moral value, because it is basic... the interpretation of this in a given situation would depend on the situation itself.

If you could stop a war by killing a city, would it be morally justifiable? Arguably so.

But if you had the opportunity to stop the war by just killing the leader of that country, would it then be morally justifiable to kill a city full of non-combatants, some of whom are not supporters of that country's policy in regards to the war... Arguably not.

And to take it further, if you could end the war without a single shot by taking the leader into custody and forcing him to surrender, would it be justifiable to shed anyone's blood, friendly or unfriendly, in needless fighting?

Would an embargo that slowly starves that leader's country be more moral than an invasion that would kill a fair percentage of that populace? Or maybe starting an armed insurrection? Or even foregoing the embargo, and trying to influence change by bombarding the populace with propaganda, exposing them to your culture and way of thought?

You weigh the pros and cons, then you decide. But even given two rational beings with the same regard for life, you can't always get the same answer. You may think that the answer is simple and straight-forward, but it only is to [b[you[/b]. Others may see it differently, depending on what their cultural background is.

While the basic tenets of your morality may stay the same (I say your, because the cultural and religious interpretations of morality are always changing), the application of your morality to the situation will change.

And the culture does change. Modern first worlders are a squeamish lot. To the point that civilian casualties are described as "collateral damage", to blunt the impact of the actual occurence. The public outcry over the caning of a juvenile delinquent in Singapore? Laughably loud... especially considering that twenty years before that, it was still perfectly acceptable to belt your child black and blue if he'd done some less grievious act. But it's the culture of the times. And no, I don't condone physical torture for property damage, but hey, that kid probably won't do it again.

Whatever your morals and ethics are, they're yours. Formed by your educational background, upbringing and personality. Change any of the above factors, and your morality may change, or it may not, depending on how deep your insight is into the issues regarding religion, morality and culture are... or even depending on your genetic predisposition.

-----

Ouch, tree'd by Famine.

But, to reiterate... I don't believe that the atomic bombings were immoral, given the situation of the time. But such an act, in these times, would be, given the alternatives available.

But everything is debatable.

 

[Touring Mars]

From your post above, you would seem to be arguing that, within the sovereign borders of Germany, it was moral to not treat Jews, homosexuals and the disabled as humans - popular opinion defining morality.

Say the elected government of Upper Fundistania passes a vote which says women cannot work, get any school education and should be whipped three times daily. The government is elected based on popular vote and the vote of the government is representative of popular opinion. Is it moral that women can't work or get schooled and get whipped? "Morality is defined by popular vote" would argue that it is.

What is moral cannot be subjective. However morals are breached and rights subjugated all the time by even elected governments, representing the majority. What is legal is subjective. But, as Danoff's signature says, the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority - at least not without breaching morality.

Perhaps the bone of contention here is not whether morality itself is objective or not, but whether human beings are capable of experiencing morality in a purely objective way. I'd say not. The examples you describe clearly illustrate why morality shouldn't be defined by popular vote or by personal experience, but what is perceived by people as right and wrong is influenced by the subjectivity of personal experience - a fact frequently exploited by governments to get elected in the first place!

I can see why morality is objective, but I'd argue that human society is a subjective filter that can 'change it's mind' about whether an action or event is considered moral or immoral, and hence make it almost impossible to ascribe an absolute moral characteristic to certain events... how killing 100,000 people in a single attack could be considered 'moral' depended largely on what happened next...

edit: Tree'd by niky!

 

[Famine]

I can see why morality is objective, but I'd argue that human society is a subjective filter that can 'change it's mind' about whether an action or event is considered moral or immoral, and hence make it almost impossible to ascribe an absolute moral characteristic to certain events...

With that I can agree - 150 years ago in the UK it was just fine to marry, and produce children with, a 9 year old girl. We do filter, but that also serves as a reminder that society is not the definer of morality - logic (rationality?) is. Humans don't define logic either... Logic is, and sometimes we aren't very good at sticking with it...

 

[ERacer]

Concepts should not be considered as "absolutes." Concepts, by definition, are conceived by us, and us such, deserve to be treated as "works in progress." To say a concept such as Morality can be defined in absolute terms suggests that we have progressed sufficiently with that particular concept that we have come to an end result in terms of definition. And, we clearly have not.

ERacer

 

[Danoff]

Seems as though Famine has left me nothing to respond to. But in typical danoff fashion, I'll respond anyway if not for any other reason than to indicate that I concur with Famine's interpretation.

I do not mean to be rude, Danoff, but if that post is anything similar to your current style of discussion, I am simply not interested in reading it.

If you mean that you expect that I redefine terms, the answer is no.

I have noticed your discussions start out fine. Seemingly well thought out and presented. However, as the rest of our community chime in with their thoughts, suppositions and counter proposals, things seem to get a bit too much for you to handle. When the going gets too hot for you, you then dismiss their ideas by the infantile method of simply redefining the key terms or concepts within your original argument. In this particular case, you have kindly “volunteered” your definition of morality as the status quo.

First of all, I'll ignore that little jab at my maturity.

Secondly, I have fully acknowledged that you may define the word morality differently than I do. Morality may refer to a different concept for you than for me. However, those concepts still exist for both of us - we just have to figure out a way to communicate so that we can clearly understand which concept we're referring to. You define morality by current popular opinion, which I claim is a definition that renders it moot in this discussion. The question is whether these two bombings were justified - not whether popular opinion supported them. I claim that you cannot use popular opinion to justify any action (see Famine's examples above). So your definition of morality as popular opinion makes it useless in this discussion. You don't have to define morality the way I do, but you should let me know what name you're currently giving the concept of just action that I'm referring to is so that I can use it and you'll understand what I'm saying.

The fact that you think I'm trying to redefine my way out of a corner means that you truly do not understand my point.

In this case, you are just being stubborn and unwilling to admit to other possibilities.

Perhaps. Perhaps it is stubbornness of me to conclude that you cannot justify any action based on the prevailing social climate of the time. Perhaps it is that... or perhaps it is because it simply cannot be done. Check my signature to see what I'm getting at (and refer to Famine's examples above). You yourself have claimed that to try to use social climate to justify an action seems ridiculous.

However, because I am a middle school teacher and a single mother of two, I will continue to observe as I am interested in the concept of morality, especially in today's world.

You and I will both get more out of the discussion if you participate - if that really is your goal. And give the Truth/Justice thread a read-through. You might not hate it as much as you expect.

The problem with defining morality as being the difference between right and wrong... and saying this is objective and not subjective... you have to define: "What is right?"

Again, I have created a thread about this very subject... no, justice is not subjective. You define justice using logic, and logic is not subjective. One might not use it correctly, one might misapply logic. I may be misapplying logic to arrive at my own notion of justice. But that does not degrade logic or reason, it simply represents my own failings. In the truth/justice thread I have put forth my own attempt to use reason to establish the right to life. Take a look at try to poke holes in it. That's the reason I posted it. To either debunk it or make it more robust by addressing concerns from folks who believe that justice is subjective.

Morality is not just defined by motive, because if we go down that slippery slope, we have mass murderers whose motives would surely exonerate them from their crimes.

I'm gonna need an example.

The second definition is probably what most of us would agree upon... it's apparently the one you believe in, since you state that morality does not change, but by the first definition, which relates to the cultural aspect of morality, yes, morality may change with time and culture and from individual to individual.

You can define it differently than I have. But defining it to be based on cultural whims removes it from any discussion about justice.

If you could stop a war by killing a city, would it be morally justifiable? Arguably so.

No, the ends never justify the means. The beginnings justify the means. The nature of how the war started is the justification for the response.

But if you had the opportunity to stop the war by just killing the leader of that country, would it then be morally justifiable to kill a city full of non-combatants, some of whom are not supporters of that country's policy in regards to the war... Arguably not.

Again, ends cannot justify the means. If the leader of that country was justified in starting the war, you are not truly justified in fighting against him by any means.

And to take it further, if you could end the war without a single shot by taking the leader into custody and forcing him to surrender, would it be justifiable to shed anyone's blood, friendly or unfriendly, in needless fighting?

Would an embargo that slowly starves that leader's country be more moral than an invasion that would kill a fair percentage of that populace? Or maybe starting an armed insurrection? Or even foregoing the embargo, and trying to influence change by bombarding the populace with propaganda, exposing them to your culture and way of thought?

See above.

You weigh the pros and cons, then you decide. But even given two rational beings with the same regard for life, you can't always get the same answer. You may think that the answer is simple and straight-forward, but it only is to [b[you[/b]. Others may see it differently, depending on what their cultural background is.

Only one answer based on correct application of reason.

And the culture does change.

Granted.

Whatever your morals and ethics are, they're yours. Formed by your educational background, upbringing and personality. Change any of the above factors, and your morality may change, or it may not, depending on how deep your insight is into the issues regarding religion, morality and culture are... or even depending on your genetic predisposition.

I think at this point you know how I'd respond to that.

But, to reiterate... I don't believe that the atomic bombings were immoral, given the situation of the time. But such an act, in these times, would be, given the alternatives available.

The circumstance may change the morality of an act - but prevailing cultural opinion does not.

I can see why morality is objective, but I'd argue that human society is a subjective filter that can 'change it's mind' about whether an action or event is considered moral or immoral, and hence make it almost impossible to ascribe an absolute moral characteristic to certain events... how killing 100,000 people in a single attack could be considered 'moral' depended largely on what happened next...

Generally, I agree with this statement. We may never be able to properly apply reason to understand whether an act was justified - but that does not mean we shouldn't give it our best effort.

However, I don't think that the morality of killing 100,000 people depends at ALL on what happens next. (see ends not justifying the means above)

 

[ERacer]

No, the ends never justify the means. The beginnings justify the means. The nature of how the war started is the justification for the response.

Are you suggesting that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor is justification for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Again, ends cannot justify the means. If the leader of that country was justified in starting the war, you are not truly justified in fighting against him by any means.

Are you suggesting that we should have evaluated Japan's justification for bombing Pearl Harbor and thereby starting a war with the US, prior to engaging the Japanese? And if we then discovered that the general population of Japan had no issue with the US and that only the Japanese government saw us as a threat, then, to paraphrase your quote, we would not be justified in fighting against them by any means?

I'm gonna need an explanation.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

I never said they are worth less than civilians, re-read my post if you think that.

I said they aren't innocent (barring National service), they chose to go to war, they know that some wars are good and some wars are bad (although aren't all wars bad?...)



Well, I think that's the point of being a soldier. Fighting for your country, not week after week of training drills.

That doesn't make them less "innocent" than civillians. What would happen to a country with no soldiers at all? It's something that every country needs to avoid being taken over by another, period.
They're simply still considered acceptable, because you have to kill somebody, or it's not a war.

Are you suggesting that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor is justification for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If I'm not mistaken, the Japanese hadn't even declared they were involved in the war, or not against us until they bombed pearl harbor? Basically striking when we didn't even know they were fighting? Sounds like justification for an all out strike in return to me. As much as you'll ever get, anyway.

 

[Danoff]

Are you suggesting that we should have evaluated Japan's justification for bombing Pearl Harbor and thereby starting a war with the US, prior to engaging the Japanese? And if we then discovered that the general population of Japan had no issue with the US and that only the Japanese government saw us as a threat, then, to paraphrase your quote, we would not be justified in fighting against them by any means?

Not at all. This doesn't have anything to do with whether the general Japanese population had an "issue' with us. This has to do with the justifications for military action on the part of the aggressor (Japan in this case). If we had done something to justify their attack, then the attack was just, and a retaliation is not. Now, when I say we had to have done something to justify the attack, I mean that specific attack, not just any aggressive action taken by the Japanese - but an action as severe as the one they chose. It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted.

It's simpler with individuals. If someone is trying to kill you unjustly, you're warranted in all out force in defense. But one could argue that Japan was not trying to kill us entirely, just maim us, and then you have to consider whether we knew that... Afterall, if the person who is breaking into your house is not trying to kill you, but you think they are, you can still be justified in using deadly force.

 

[ERacer]

It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted.

Would you say that the attack on Pearl Harbor warranted our retaliation of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan?

 

[Danoff]

Would you say that the attack on Pearl Harbor warranted our retaliation of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan?

I'm not going to limit it to a response to Pearl Harbor, but yes, I think they were justified.

 

[ERacer]

I'm not going to limit it to a response to Pearl Harbor, but yes, I think they were justified.

It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted.

So, you think the US was justified in dropping two atomic bombs. Do you also believe that the US would have been justified in dropping three atomic bombs? Or four? Or enough to wipe out all of the country of Japan? I'm curious to know if you would kindly quantify for us your statement; "It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted" in this particular case (i.e., the injustice of Pearl Harbor being attacked by Japan).

 

[niky]

See... now there's a trick.

The question is not how many bombs you are justified in dropping... what Danoff is saying is that the unjustified act of starting a war against the US justifies any response.

For me, though, the intended and predictive end consequence must still be taken into account when justifying acts of war... otherwise, any response, even those destructive to those on the justified side, can be justified.

Nicely posted, Danoff... still the eminent debater.

Again, I have created a thread about this very subject... no, justice is not subjective. You define justice using logic, and logic is not subjective. One might not use it correctly, one might misapply logic. I may be misapplying logic to arrive at my own notion of justice. But that does not degrade logic or reason, it simply represents my own failings. In the truth/justice thread I have put forth my own attempt to use reason to establish the right to life. Take a look at try to poke holes in it. That's the reason I posted it. To either debunk it or make it more robust by addressing concerns from folks who believe that justice is subjective.

Hmmm... have to read that... I've been off the boards for a while, and I think i wasn't that deep into the Opinions forum when you started it.

I'm gonna need an example.

Eco-Terrorism? Hahaha... well... if we go by motive, one can logically perform mass murder given false informational inputs. I.E.: cult leaders with distorted world-views leading mass suicides, for example. But then, your definition of morality as being absolute and based on logic will not accept such an example, so let's skip it for a bit.

You can define it differently than I have. But defining it to be based on cultural whims removes it from any discussion about justice.

That's the problem. When you take morality as a whole, in any discussion about modern civilization, it is always influenced by culture and religion... and no, morality in this definition certainly does not have anything to do with justice. Which is why laws and the legal system evolve over time, to remove culture-biased ideas regarding morality from the law itself. But your personal definition of morality? That's something I can agree with, and something I try to follow, myself.

No, the ends never justify the means. The beginnings justify the means. The nature of how the war started is the justification for the response.

Which brings us to the complication of motive on the part of the war starter... but the justification for the severity of response has to take into account factors as to the results of the war itself. Say, if we were not to bomb the hell out of the aggressors and to leave their government intact with its ability to cause strife... would that lead to strife in the future? Or if we were to completely destroy that government, and that would cause anarchy that would spread to other countries... what should we do, otherwise? Not considering the end result is not a logical application of justice.

Only one answer based on correct application of reason.

It should be, but people always interpret things differently... simply because we are, to quote Spock: "irrational beings"

Generally, I agree with this statement. We may never be able to properly apply reason to understand whether an act was justified - but that does not mean we shouldn't give it our best effort.

In this, we are in agreement.

However, I don't think that the morality of killing 100,000 people depends at ALL on what happens next. (see ends not justifying the means above)

See above on justification of response.

edit: Tree'd by niky!

Happy trees.

Logic is, and sometimes we aren't very good at sticking with it...

Amen. Guilty as charged, your honor.

-----

EDIT: @Danoff: Started reading "Truth, Justice, and all that" (damn the politically correct new Superman)... I agree with many of your points, but I see the problem in definition here... Justice and Truth themselves MUST be objective absolutes, but Morality is often an interpretation of Justice influenced by culture. Which is why I frown upon censorship and "moral" policing and that damn political correctness crap... these are things that should be left to people to decide upon for themselves logically, instead of being forced upon them by others of a different moral system.

Will continue reading and comment upon thread at a later date. But BTW, nice thread. 👍

 

[ERacer]

See... now there's a trick.

The question is not how many bombs you are justified in dropping... what Danoff is saying is that the unjustified act of starting a war against the US justifies any response.

He clearly stated:

It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted.

Which means he believes the greater the injustice, the greater the retaliation (which I think most people would agree with - the punishment should fit the crime). Which implies he now believes you can quantify an injustice and, therefore by extension, you can quantify justice. This basically blows up his theory about justice being absolute. It's a concept. In addition, if I had the inclination, I could demonstrate that morality is also not an absolute. It's also a concept. See, one cannot have it both ways. He likes to argue, which is fine. However, he is not debating. Because when his argument becomes indefensible, he offers to "clarify" his point by offering his own definition of the word/concept being discussed, or starts talking in effluent circles as he parrots Ayn Rand, which can be overwhelming to most participants. Google Ayn Rand and you'll discover "his" debates. Or Google "Ayn Rand on Truth, Justice and the American Way."

 

[Rykon Zero]

Well, someone was going to see what effect nukes had on a city. It was a life lesson on steroids. But when Nagasaki came around, then that was far more than enough.