|
| http://adjunctscholar.blogspot.com | | |
| I didn't intend to post again about Hiroshima &
Nagasaki; but because of both my strong beliefs about the issue and the
surprising amount of response it generated, I've decided to post one
more time. I'm going to do my best to lay out the problems that most of
my readers seem to still struggle with and give what I believe to be
the best answers. I admit that I am far from the "Answer Man"
concerning this or any other topic; but hopefully I can generate more
beneficial discussion and thought with my words.
First, let's discuss the argument that conventional war would have resulted in more total casualties
(William, CJ, Matt and Arthenor all touched on this). This is an
argument that I discussed previously. However, I believe it deserves
more attention because (a) my arguments have apparently been
unconvincing, and (b) though I disagree with the conclusions of the
argument, I agree that it is a very popular and convincing line of
argumentation.
In response to it, I would first like to refer you back to some
analysis I made earlier, which attacks one of the implicit premises of
the argument above. Essentially, the argument is a utilitarian claim: If Action X will result in less harm than [not Action X], then Action X is justified. In other words, one should evaluate the "rightness" of the nuclear bombings by an ends-based utilitarion criterion.
Unfortunately, while my readers make some really compelling claims as
to why a continuation of conventional war would have caused more deaths
in the long run, they seem to mostly miss (or implicitly reject,
perhaps) my deontological claim that the action is still wrong. In my last post, I talked about the perverse situations that can result from an ends-based mindset, especially with regard to wartime analysis.
Arthenor's response is threefold. He argues first that the situations
are "different" (in other words, that starting an unprovoked nuclear
war is disanalogous to the nuclear bombings of WWII). My point was
simply that if it could be argued that nuclear war is inevitable (or
likely to happen sometime in the future), utilitarian reasoning could
justify such heinous actions as beginning a nuclear omnicide.
He secondly questions my uncomfortability with making decisions based
upon calculation of "likely body counts." I am certainly not rejecting
this, which is made clear by my argument that to commit an act that casuses [bad things] is worse than to allow
an act that results in [bad things]. Arthenor's response (and one I
believe William gave) is that, barring the nuclear bombings, we would
have instead invaded Japan, resulting in the killing of civilians
anyway.
However, it is imperative to note that this argument creates a false dilemma.
It assumes that there are only two possible options: (1) Drop [2]
nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or (2) Continue firebombing and
invade Japan. Tony correctly points out that this argument leaves out
other options--conditional surrender, for one. In fact, I would argue
that there were options that would not have required the United States
to take actions that would knowingly result in many civilian deaths.
Another major argument I would like to address is the idea that the United States was already killing innocent civilians
through firebombing, etc. The argument more generally posits that the
nuclear bombings were not uniquely morally reprehensible; that any
ethical concerns against it could be equally applied to other tactics
already being used by both sides in the war.
Well... sure. That simply means that the US did another bad thing, not that its other morally reprehensible actions somehow justify all of them. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Moving on, Arthenor makes an interesting argument that there were really no innocent civilians. His argument is supported by a few claims: (1) Evaluate the act, not the intent (i.e. coercion is irrelevant for determining innocence or guilt); (2) Non-fighting civilians still contributed (sewing shirts for soldiers); (3) There is really no brightline for establishing complicity.
Regarding (1), my response is... well, he's simply wrong. If a man
holds a gun to my head and forces me to hand him my brother's wallet,
most moral and ethical systems would not hold me at fault, even though
I technically had a choice ("Be an unwilling participant in theft or have your brains splattered all over the wall").
On his second argument, he makes a really dangerous slippery slope
analogy. I think it's pretty clear that a 34-year-old woman, who sews a
button onto a shirt that makes its way onto Hitler's body is not held
morally responsible for the actions that Hitler takes. Now, I know
that's not Arthenor's intended conclusion. His three arguments are
simply fuel for his main conclusion, which is that since we cannot (a)
flawlessly determine guilt or innocence or (b) save all innocent lives,
our only option left is to "save as many as possible."
But I must heartily disagree with his analysis. First, just
because you can't save all (or most) innocent life or create a distinct
brightline isn't a reason to completely disregard it. By this
reasoning, since our legal system is imperfect and cannot perfectly
distinguish the innocent from the guilty, I should ensure the safety of
myself and my family and kill anyone I suspect is guilty (vigilante
style, baby!). It's not a perfect analogy, but I think my point stands
regardless. Applying it to the situation in Japan: If we can't
perfectly determine the majority of Japanese citizens' innocence or
guilt, we should not simply disregard it altogether.
Keep in mind that Arthenor's conclusion that "well, might as well save
our own lives if we can't tell" falls short at the point where invasion or nuclear bombings are not the only two options.
There was a lot more I wanted to say, but I have to get up early
tomorrow, and I don't want my post to get any longer. =P I'm guessing
there's enough here to talk about anyway. =)
| | |
| Well, after getting back from vacation, it seems as if
my comments on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have generated a bit of interest
(read: disagreement). I have work today and tomorrow, hanging out with
people before I leave (Sunday morning!), then extreme busyness with
freshmen orientation... but I'll try to get something up sometime on
here/blogger/Café Liberty.
4 days. =) | | |
| As you may or may not know, yesterday marked the 60-year anniversary of
the nuclear bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which
killed around 150,000 civilians. Ever since then, people have debated
the morality of what took place. Some argue that the bombings, though
horrible, were a necessary evil that helped to end the war and probably
saved lives overall. On the other hand, there are those who maintain
that what took place sixty years ago was a horrendously immoral action
that deserves to be exposed for what it was: a war crime.
I'm of the latter opinion. Though I believe that President Truman did
what he perceived to be pragmatically necessary, I also believe that he
was horribly misguided in his authorization of the bombings. I know
that there are many who disagree with me, though, especially having
argued this issue with a number of acquaintences. Therefore, I will do
my best to elucidate the arguments of those who believed that the
bombings were the best (least bad) of the options available.
From my experience, every argument in favor of President Truman's
course of action is centered around the pragmatic claim that it "saved
more lives in the long run." While the argument will often include
moral claims (e.g. saving more lives is a morally good action), the
argument does center around the fact that the bombings, regardless of
how horrible they were, had an overall net benefit.
The reasons for believing this statement are many, but the two most
common deal with the Japanese's unwillingness to surrender and the
subsequent military action that would have been necessary in the
absence of the nuclear bombings. For example, a typical argument might
sound something like the following:
"While what happened was horrible and killed thousands upon thousands
of civilians, far more would have died in the absence of such a drastic
course of action. For one, the Japanese were willing to fight to the
death rather than surrender, an ingrained cultural belief that
surrender was the ultimate sign of shame. This mindset would have
lengthened the duration of the war significantly, most likely resulting
in even more civilian deaths. Second, absent the bombings, the United
States would have been forced to conduct numerous more small-scale
bombings, including civilian-populated areas, which would have had
higher projected death totals."
As you might have predicted, I disagree with this argument, for a few
reasons. First, the argument assumes that the Japanese would have
refused to surrender. Even if this claim were true (and there are
reasons to believe the contrary), the position disproves itself. If the
Japanese were really willing to "fight to the last man," then by that
reasoning, the nuclear bombings would not have deterred them. The very
fact that they were pushed into surrendering means that their supposed
"fight to the last man" mentality was not absolute. If this is true,
then there is no reason to assume that many more civilians would have
died had the war continued conventionally. For all we know, with conventional warfare that did not specifically target civilians, the Japanese could have surrendered before the death totals passed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Second, and more generally, the argument assumes that more civilians
would have died. This is related to my analysis above--while it is
possible that the bombings "saved" lives in the long run, there were so
many factors involved that any assumption about future actions and
results is specious at best.
Turning to a more offensive line of argumentation, I would argue that
the intentional targeting of innocent civilians was immoral. This
argument holds true for several reasons:
First, I believe that intentional targeting of innocent civilians is
categorically wrong, in war or otherwise. I understand that this
statement would take pages upon pages to coherently and comprehensively
defend, but let's just say I'm a deontologist, not a utilitarian. If
you disagree with me, well, we can hash that out sometime. =)
Second, the logical end of such belief creates perverse situations.
When we start to talk about lives in terms of cold, calculating
analysis, it becomes easy to argue such positions such as spark analysis, where
it is posited that, given the inevitability of nuclear warfare and the
rising possible death toll as nuclear technology is developed and
equipment is secured, it is defensible from a utilitarian perspective
to start a nuclear war now. While I know that many utilitarians would
not buy that argument, it does show the danger of using mere numbers to
determine morality of actions, especially when those numbers are real,
actual human beings.
Third, I would argue that committing an act is distinct from allowing a
course of action that could itself result in an immoral action being taken. For
example, I would argue that there is a definite difference (in terms of
moral culpability) between participating in the genocide in Sudan and
allowing it to continue. With this in mind, my conclusion becomes
clear: Intentionally targeting innocent civilians is more morally
reprehensible than allowing a war to continue that "might" or even
"probably" would result in more deaths.
I know that my analysis is far from comprehensive in nature;
regardless, I thought I would take 20 minutes of my time to throw out a
thought-provoking post. Comments, disagreements and questions are
welcome. =)
| | |
| I got a new cellphone, which is pretty awesome. But I lost all my
contacts; so please call me (at the same number), IM or email me your
phone numbers again. Thanks. =)
edit: gone on a family vacation for 3 days. Back Wednesday sometime. Call the cell (I might have service; not sure.) =)
| | |
|
