Are there absolute moral axioms?

[inocente]

So the end justifies the means? Is it all right to murder thousands of innocent children in order to stop a war?

Such thoughts don’t help when you’re between a rock and a hard place, and as I said, the US government in common with many others uses consequentialist reasoning.

If you were Truman, with the evidence available to him, what would you have done differently that would have resulted in fewer Japanese deaths by the end of the war?

 

[Tomdstone]

As I said, I’m no expert, but no one here has provided any evidence that some other decision would have resulted in fewer Japanese deaths. No one has even said what the alternative might have been.

If Hiroshima had not been bombed, 100,000 people, including women and children, would not have died. So the choice was: if Hiroshima is bombed, many people will certainly die. If Hiroshima is not bombed, then it is possible that later on, many other people might die.
But we also see that the reasoning involved to justify the bombing is flawed in other respects because people have argued that if an offer of immunity was given to the emperor, the war would have ended in July 1945 or that if the bomb was dropped on an unoccupied area of Japan, Japan would have surrendered.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you were Truman, with the evidence available to him, what would you have done differently that would have resulted in fewer Japanese deaths by the end of the war?

. “According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.”
“…the number of American deaths prevented by the two bombs would almost certainly not have exceeded 20,000 and would probably have been much lower, perhaps even zero.”
fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/strange_myth/article.html

 

[Tomdstone]

As I said, I’m no expert, but no one here has provided any evidence that some other decision would have resulted in fewer Japanese deaths. No one has even said what the alternative might have been.

“Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe and one of the architects of the successful campaign against Germany, was one of the dissenters. After the war, Eisenhower recalled his position in 1945, asserting that “Japan was defeated and… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary”…“I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’""
teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/25484

 

[tonyrey]

Sartre pointed out that we cannot avoid making moral decisions. Even doing nothing has consequences for which we are responsible - if we foresee the consequences. Even if we are not sure what will happen we still have to make a decision. The universal principle of choosing what we believe to be right still applies. If we are genuinely uncertain we have to ask for advice and hope for the best. Ignorance is not a valid reason for moral relativism.

 

[inocente]

. “According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.”
“…the number of American deaths prevented by the two bombs would almost certainly not have exceeded 20,000 and would probably have been much lower, perhaps even zero.”
fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/strange_myth/article.html

My browser gave an alert on that site. Turns out it belongs to David Irving the Holocaust denier. His name is at the bottom of the pages. I assume you didn’t realize, but obviously nothing from such despicable source can be trusted.

 

[inocente]

“Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe and one of the architects of the successful campaign against Germany, was one of the dissenters. After the war, Eisenhower recalled his position in 1945, asserting that “Japan was defeated and… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary”…“I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’""
teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/25484

As I said, consequentialist morality is not the place to look for absolutes because people will always argue about the consequences. Your quote from Eisenhower indicates his concern was for world opinion and American lives. Other advisers would have had different priorities. Truman had to weigh them all. We can argue into the night on whether he got the right balance but we weren’t there, and I think in the end all we can do is be thankful we’ll never be called on to make such a decision.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The normal intercourse of human beings involves dealing with criminal actions. I don’t see how you can say that this moral axiom “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has universal assent. There are many cases when people see it as their moral obligation to do things that they would not want done to themselves. Take for example, the judge who sentences someone to death by hanging. I doubt that he would want that done to himself, yet he believes that it is his moral obligation to do so. Similarly, in dealing with convicted criminals which turns up in the normal intercourse of human beings, at least in many areas of the USA, the prison guard locks the prisoner in a prison cage of solitary confinement. I don’t think that he wants the criminal to do the same to him.

The judge would know that if he commits the same kind of crime as the person he is sentenccing to death, he should be judged by the same standard.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right, but I’m asking who has the “ultimate authority” regarding the applicability of morals in your system? Take your moral that we shouldn’t inflict needless suffering for example. If you give each person license to interpret what “needless” means, any amount of suffering could be justified.

Your logic is simply defeated by the fact that if no one has the ultimate authority to make any decision concerning any moral axiom, then there would be no morality … period.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some people say waterboarding is suffering and it is needless since you cannot trust confessions under torture. Others will say that waterboarding is needed as a tool against terrorism and further they claim that it is not torture but they describe it as an enhanced interrogation technique. So this “moral axiom” is very subjective in its application.

And yet it has been proven to get desired results … information that defeats the greater evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Didn’t Vietnam subsequently confirm that Americans who fondly imagine invaded peoples will just acquiesce are being wildly optimistic?

The My Lai Massacre in South Vietnam was another instance of assault on civilian population, not nearly so great an assault as that on the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Do the math.

I reiterate: it’s absurd to argue the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done to save civilian Japanese lives. It was done to save American soldiers lives.

Do the math.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sorry but the Truman and torture scenarios are morally equivalent.

No they are not, and certainly not by any utitlitarian calculation. Truman had other options.

There was no other way to get the information about imminent terrorism except by torture.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you were Truman, with the evidence available to him, what would you have done differently that would have resulted in fewer Japanese deaths by the end of the war?

Tomdstone has answered you on this.

I think a demonstration of the bomb on unoccupied Japan would have served sufficient notice, along with the promise that another bomb was available for Tokyo soon after if there was no immediate surrender. After all, if, following utilitarian theory, you are determined to kill lots of Japanes civilians in order to save a lot more Japanese civilians, you might as well take out the most important ones. That would certainly have given the government in Tokyo something to think about.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone has answered you on this.

I think a demonstration of the bomb on unoccupied Japan would have served sufficient notice, along with the promise that another bomb was available for Tokyo soon after if there was no immediate surrender. After all, if, following utilitarian theory, you are determined to kill lots of Japanes civilians in order to save a lot more Japanese civilians, you might as well take out the most important ones. That would certainly have given the government in Tokyo something to think about.

Not only that but . “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey [1946]

 

[inocente]

No they are not, and certainly not by any utitlitarian calculation. Truman had other options.

Fine but I joined the thread to discuss the OP, not opinions on Truman. As I think I’ve said a couple of times, people will always argue about the consequences of consequentialist morality.

There was no other way to get the information about imminent terrorism except by torture.

There’s no moral difference between that and what Truman did - neither is concerned about good and evil, only in managing consequences.

This is a very different morality from your own Church, which is clear that torture is categorically wrong in all circumstances:

*CCC 2297 …] Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

“Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”” - vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria_en.html*

Your country has also signed the UDHR, which gives an even clearer prohibition:

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. - un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Fine but I joined the thread to discuss the OP, not opinions on Truman. As I think I’ve said a couple of times, people will always argue about the consequences of consequentialist morality.

There’s no moral difference between that and what Truman did - neither is concerned about good and evil, only in managing consequences.

This is a very different morality from your own Church, which is clear that torture is categorically wrong in all circumstances:

*CCC 2297 …] Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

“Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”” - vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria_en.html*

Your country has also signed the UDHR, which gives an even clearer prohibition:

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. - un.org/en/documents/udhr/

None of these quotes apply to the case of terrorism. They refer very specifically to the traditional prisoner who is in no position to give information that may prevent a calamity. When the CCC was published, the question of torturing a terrorist for information that could save lives was not even an issue as you can see from the language of the passage you cited. Nowhere does that passage indicate that torture to obtain information in order to prevent a calamity is forbidden.

Moreover, there are different kinds of torture that needn’t result in permanent injury, such as waterboarding. Is that the kind of torture you had in mind? That in no way constitutes wounding a prisoner by the application of a knife or beating him to a pulp. Again, such prisoners are not prisoners in the traditional sense, but are prisoners of war. A just war allows for extraordinary means on the battlefield, so long as they do not exceed the offense against the victim (the victims of 9/ll, for example).

This from the Catechism may interest you:

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

inocente

By the way, is it your view that waterboarding should be considered immoral, or that it is the view of the Catholic Church that waterboarding is forbidden?

Is there a specific reference to waterboarding by the Catholic bishops as torture and therefore forbidden?

Incidentally, the just war morality of the Catholic Church included condemnation of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two cities were hardly the moral equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

“Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man.” The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.”

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

[Oreoracle]

Is there a specific reference to waterboarding by the Catholic bishops as torture and therefore forbidden?

Are you suggesting that you aren’t willing to recognize waterboarding as torture unless your church tells you it is?

I know you’re playing the role of dutiful Catholic, but please think without any bias for a moment. They hold you down and gag you with wet cloth to simulate drowning. In what universe is that not torture? How much do you have to twist definitions before you can call that anything other than torture?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you suggesting that you aren’t willing to recognize waterboarding as torture unless your church tells you it is?

I know you’re playing the role of dutiful Catholic, but please think without any bias for a moment. They hold you down and gag you with wet cloth to simulate drowning. In what universe is that not torture? How much do you have to twist definitions before you can call that anything other than torture?

In what parallel universe of yours was there no torture at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki the moral equivalent of Pearl Harbor?

To give them the moral equivalence of waterboarding, or to give amputed limbs and beatings the moral equivalence of waterboarding is absurd. The Catholic Church plainly states that a just war is allowed. The means of conducting that war are not to exceed the wounds done to the victimized party (the slain at the Trade Towers and the Pentagon). Is waterboarding to extract information needed to prevent future 9/11s in excess of the wounds on 9/11?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you suggesting that you aren’t willing to recognize waterboarding as torture unless your church tells you it is?

I know you’re playing the role of dutiful Catholic, but please think without any bias for a moment.

So what role are you playing, the dutiful anti-Catholic?

Can you please please please stop the sarcasm?