As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[smichhertz]

Absolutely NOT hypothetical.

Situation was real.

You have the advantage, moreover, of hindsight.

So, what would you have done?

What? It absolutely IS hypothetical. Sure, the event is real, but I WASN’T President. Furthermore, I’m no historian, and I’m no military expert. It’s not really my place to answer a question like that.

Most importantly, it’s irrelevant to determining whether or not the situation is immoral. I’ve already explained that in the above post, perhaps you could explain why you think it’s relevant to determining the morality of an act and we can go from there? The fact that you are asking this question shows you have a flawed understanding of morality, or perhaps we have a different understanding of what “immoral” means?

If a man cheats on his wife, it’s immoral. He can make all the excuses he wants, ask all the “what would you do in this situation?” questions he wants, talk about his past childhood, etc. That in no way changes the fact that its immoral. And sure, maybe if I had walked a mile in his shoes, I would have cheated too. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s immoral.

Tell you what, you explain to me how that’s relevant to determining the morality of Hiroshima, and if you can convince me of that, then I’ll answer your question. Otherwise, I can’t on the grounds that’s irrelevant, a distraction to the question at hand, and quite frankly, impossible to answer with certainty. It’ll just turn things into a back and forth, with no authentic discussion.

 

[Poof]

Morally wrong. While the bombing may have been necessary to a certain extent, killing is wrong. Hiroshima killed thousands of innocent people, it can’t be justified.

 

[pnewton]

How should I know? That’s purely hypothetical.

I can tell you one thing - if I were to do drop the bomb, it would have been immoral.

This gets back to what I was talking about earlier: judging the objective vs subjective elements of morality. Morality is objective in nature, therefore we judge it from an objective standpoint.

The subjective elements certainly play a role in that person’s individual standing with God, but it is irrelevant to determining the morality of an act. Hence “what would you do?” questions are always helpful to prevent us from judging another, but aren’t really relevant to the topic at hand.

The initial question is addressed in such a way to allow for either answer, the objective or the subjective judgement. I have focused mostly on the subjective, because it avoids the issue of using perfect hindsight and better theoloogical understanding in judging the past. The Catechism teaches that indiscriminate targeting of civilians is immoral. This is the unavoidable Catholic answer to the question of the objective morality. We can argue about whether Nagasaki targeted civilians indiscriminately, but Hiroshima seems rather clearly aimed at killing civilians as a primary goal.

As to what would I do if I were Truman, I too can not say. I would have used the nuclear weapon, I am almost certain. Based on my knowledge today, I would have targeted primary strategic military targets only, even if they were in or near cities. However, without the benefit of the Catholic teaching that was to later develop, I might well have done as he did.

 

[Warrior1979]

Morally wrong. While the bombing may have been necessary to a certain extent, killing is wrong. Hiroshima killed thousands of innocent people, it can’t be justified.

Invading Japan would therefore also be morally wrong, because it is likely that more people would have died. Given these facts, the only “moral” action would be do simply walk away. There is no other logical conclusion.

 

[Warrior1979]

You can’t kill an innocent child so you can use his organs to save 20 innocent people; and you can’t drop an atomic bomb on an innocent child to demoralize his countrymen into surrendering.

The analogy is incorrect. Faced with the scenario where you can either kill 1 person by pressing a button, otherwise you have to slaughter 20 in person, with the chance of you and other possibly dying the process, which would you choose?

 

[sw85]

Are you trying justify nukes?

An invasion of mainland Japan would have been sheer idiocy. It’s like saying the alternative to taking an Advil for a headache is to jump off a cliff and landing on one’s head.

Think of how many racially and culturally homogenous countries the size of Japan with a strong military were invaded and defeated. You’ll find few examples. I seriously doubt the U.S. could have done it in 1945. We can’t even do it in 2011 with current military might and technology.

What you’re saying is that we weren’t willing to pay the price of finishing the war licitly. That sounds, to me, like a good reason not to finish the war.

All this assumes that the only way to end the war was to crush Japan utterly. I simply don’t hew to that; in fact, no one believed that was the only way to end a war for centuries prior to WW2. Legitimate self-defense only extends to the level necessary to subdue one’s opponents; you cannot licitly use more force than is necessary. And it seems to me quite clear that Japan was, if not repentant, certainly defeated militarily.

If you are faced with two evils, is there a requirement to choose the one that would likely result in the greatest harm?

The requirement is that you not do evil, ever. If evil happens to result from the good you’ve done, it simply can’t be helped.

God is not a utilitarian.

 

[pnewton]

Legitimate self-defense only extends to the level necessary to subdue one’s opponents; you cannot licitly use more force than is necessary. And it seems to me quite clear that Japan was, if not repentant, certainly defeated militarily.

There is the case of the WWI, followed by WWII, you know, the one in question. Here is the Catholic Just War Doctrine:

catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

There is nothing int there that says a country can not be totally defeated. The idea of “no more force than necessary” only begs the question" of what is necessary. In the case of fanatical imperialism, it is easy to say that total defeat may be necessary. Germany did not surrender until Hitler was dead. It was not in his evil nature to surrender.

I am of the opinion that a cease fire at that point would have resulted in another Pearl Harbor in the next decade or two, probably with a nuclear weapon and probably on the U.S. mainland. That is the lesson I take from history.

 

[Warrior1979]

There is nothing int there that says a country can not be totally defeated. The idea of “no more force than necessary” only begs the question" of what is necessary. In the case of fanatical imperialism, it is easy to say that total defeat may be necessary. Germany did not surrender until Hitler was dead. It was not in his evil nature to surrender.

I don’t believe it was just Hitler dying. The events leading up to it were more important, notably overextending their military into the Soviet Union. If Hitler simply died with the military strong and intact, the result may have been very different.

 

[sw85]

There is the case of the WWI, followed by WWII, you know, the one in question. Here is the Catholic Just War Doctrine:

catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

There is nothing int there that says a country can not be totally defeated. The idea of “no more force than necessary” only begs the question" of what is necessary. In the case of fanatical imperialism, it is easy to say that total defeat may be necessary. Germany did not surrender until Hitler was dead. It was not in his evil nature to surrender.

Conversely, there is nothing that allows for the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in order to achieve a strategically unnecessary total victory.

I am of the opinion that a cease fire at that point would have resulted in another Pearl Harbor in the next decade or two, probably with a nuclear weapon and probably on the U.S. mainland. That is the lesson I take from history.

And on the basis of your opinion, you’d happily kill 200,000 people? Many of them women and children?

 

[Warrior1979]

The requirement is that you not do evil, ever. If evil happens to result from the good you’ve done, it simply can’t be helped.

The means is not the only thing determining with an action is just as many seem to think; the ends must also be considered. I’ve already quoted the appropriate part of the CCC. If evil is the likely result of good, it is also immoral. You’re picking one immoral action over the other.

 

[Evan]

Conversely, there is nothing that allows for the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in order to achieve a strategically unnecessary total victory.

And on the basis of your opinion, you’d happily kill 200,000 people? Many of them women and children?

Is there some moral precept that men are of less value that women and children. We are all equal. What is so significant that they are women. Women work for the war machine, just as the men in war time. Children were also pressed into service. I would leave the “Think of the children” business out of the argument. Use instead, “Think of the humanity”.

 

[smichhertz]

The Catechism teaches that indiscriminate targeting of civilians is immoral. This is the unavoidable Catholic answer to the question of the objective morality. We can argue about whether Nagasaki targeted civilians indiscriminately, but Hiroshima seems rather clearly aimed at killing civilians as a primary goal.

And this is the core of what I’m trying to get at. If you want to say that the bombing of Hiroshima is morally permissible, you have to show how it wasn’t targeting innocent civilians. Otherwise, it is clearly immoral from a Catholic perspective. That’s where the crux of the debate lies.

I think the other thing is people keep misunderstanding what I’m saying. Saying the bombing of Hiroshima is immoral means that just that act of war was immoral. That’s not saying the Americans weren’t justified in WWII, that’s not saying that we’re even morally culpable for the act, only that the act in and of itself is immoral.

As to what would I do if I were Truman, I too can not say. I would have used the nuclear weapon, I am almost certain. Based on my knowledge today, I would have targeted primary strategic military targets only, even if they were in or near cities. However, without the benefit of the Catholic teaching that was to later develop, I might well have done as he did.

The initial question is addressed in such a way to allow for either answer, the objective or the subjective judgement. I have focused mostly on the subjective, because it avoids the issue of using perfect hindsight and better theoloogical understanding in judging the past.

I disagree a little here. The second you put in an “I”, “me”, “we”, “you” or something to that effect, it becomes subjective.

Also, judging things from an objective standpoint ELIMINATES hindsight. Those who keep arguing for the dropping of the bomb say it ended the war. Well, that’s using hindsight (something I’ve argued is irrelevant to determining the morality of a given act). I’m saying it’s immoral because you can’t deliberately target and kill innocent civilians. That’s NOT using hindsight.

 

[smichhertz]

Is there some moral precept that men are of less value that women and children.

So it’s morally wrong to kill combatants in war? That makes no sense. Clearly there is a distinction between killing combatants and non combatants.

A combatant killing another combatant in war: Morally permissible.

A combatant killing a non combatant in war: Immoral.

 

[Evan]

So it’s morally wrong to kill combatants in war? That makes no sense. Clearly there is a distinction between killing combatants and non combatants.

A combatant killing another combatant in war: Morally permissible.

A combatant killing a non combatant in war: Immoral.

So when did all men become combatants? During WWII, was the senate combatants (all men) and the judiciary (most or all men). Were the head of all large corp’s combatants (all men). All the priests and monks (all men). All the WWI vets (all men).

The other phrase that seems emotional rather than objective is the ‘innocent civilians’. Innocent of what crime? What crime did all the military engage in? My grandfather was a cook in the army. If that is not a crime, should we describe him as an innocent combatant?

Are civilian murderers serving time on death row ‘innocent’.

Just speak of civilians and combatants and military and industrial. Leave off the emotional adjectives. They dilute your argument in my eyes. I see someone trying to persuade using diversionary tactics: ironiccatholic.com/2010/08/twisted-drama-of-green-eggs-and-ham.html

 

[sw85]

The means is not the only thing determining with an action is just as many seem to think; the ends must also be considered. I’ve already quoted the appropriate part of the CCC. If evil is the likely result of good, it is also immoral. You’re picking one immoral action over the other.

I don’t see where you quoted the CCC and I don’t particularly care to sift through 30 pages of forum posts to find it, but I doubt you’re interpreting that passage correctly. That would be an invitation to consequentialism, and the Church explicitly (and correctly) rejects consequentialism as a tremendous moral evil.

What the Catechism probably actually says is that the licitness of the means is determined in part by the end, which is what I said previously: that it is licit to use the amount of force necessary to defend oneself. Thus it is morally licit to shoot an intruder who’s coming at you with a knife, but not morally licit to shoot the same intruder in the back as he runs away from you. In the former case you are acting in legitimate self-defense; in the latter case, you are committing murder on the basis of, perhaps, the vague intuition that if you don’t, he might come back tomorrow night with a friend or two and beat you up.

Considering the fact that Japan was already largely militarily defeated, I see no reason why a total victory was even necessary, much less one that could be won only at the cost of indiscriminately slaughtering upwards of 200,000 civilians. The criminal was subdued; further force was unjustified.

 

[duneman]

dropping bomb saved my dad’s life as he was going to the invasion,

 

[duneman]

Morally wrong. While the bombing may have been necessary to a certain extent, killing is wrong. Hiroshima killed thousands of innocent people, it can’t be justified.

easy for you to say sitting on your couch, my dad was going to be involved in the invasion and dropping the bomb saved his life… you would of made same decision !!! my dad was innocent too !!!

 

[smichhertz]

So when did all men become combatants? During WWII, was the senate combatants (all men) and the judiciary (most or all men). Were the head of all large corp’s combatants (all men). All the priests and monks (all men). All the WWI vets (all men).

All men AREN’T combatants that’s my point.

The other phrase that seems emotional rather than objective is the ‘innocent civilians’. Innocent of what crime? What crime did all the military engage in? My grandfather was a cook in the army. If that is not a crime, should we describe him as an innocent combatant?

The modifier “innocent” is used in the sense that they are innocent of justification to kill them. Obviously, no one is truly “innocent”. We’re all guilty of something. But a criminal would be considered “innocent” if he did not commit the crime he was accused of, even if he had done other bad things in the past. Same in warfare: “innocent” refers to the lack of justification in killing them.

It’s not an emotional ploy, it’s a factual modifier used to delineate the difference between justified killing and unjustified killing. The CCC uses it as well:

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

It’s important that we include the modifier “innocent” to illustrate this important distinction.

 

[smichhertz]

easy for you to say sitting on your couch, my dad was going to be involved in the invasion and dropping the bomb saved his life… you would of made same decision !!! my dad was innocent too !!!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Morally wrong. While the bombing may have been necessary to a certain extent, killing is wrong. Hiroshima killed thousands of innocent people, it can’t be justified.

You are in a really nasty war.

Wars, of course, are all nasty … otherwise, we wouldn’t call them “war”. War is not a tea party with the women in petticoats and fancy hairdos and the men in cutaways.

But, like it or not, you are in a war.

And your adversary is not quitting.

The Japanese in the summer of 1945 were hurting, but they were not stopping. All they had to do was to stand down and just quit fighting.

But they didn’t.

They had taken a tremendous beating, were just about out of fuel, but they continued to fight. They had built HUGE long range submarines that we didn’t know about – the I-400’s that were far more advanced then anything we had. They had high altitude interceptors that continued to surprise us. They had stockpiled hundreds or thousands of fighter airplanes. They had huge industrial resources in Korea and elsewhere that they could draw upon … check me on this but Nagasaki was one of the major ports for Sea of Japan traffic. And it appears they had test fired a successful nuclear device made in what is now North Korea.

Will the Americans surrender and let the Japanese have their way with us?

So, don’t tell me what not to do … say what you would do … and it should be very easy for you to do that, because you now have the advantage of hindsight … you know much more about the military and economic dispositions of the Americans, the Japanese and the British and the Soviets than anyone did back at the time.

So, what would you do?