As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[jasonfan]

For most girls’ cheap wedding accessoriesdreams, one day they will wear a types wedding dresses belong to her and have a special style of wedding. However, for the economic impression, most people chose to have a

naked cheap wedding gowns for sale. So “ naked marriage”became a popular words nowdays. The TV series “ the

time of naked marriage” is adapted from modest bridesmaid dresses sleeves after generation beauty writers Tang xingyi tells a popular story depends on the writer’s own plus size wedding dresses. Tong jiaqian marrys to summer wedding

dresseswithout house, car,wedding and money. They marry for love,while lve without money can’t stand long. They divoices one year later for unsolved question.

The original writer of naked marriage means : as for one shoulder wedding dresses 2011, naked marriage is just a neutrul wonderful prom dresses, a life style of not wrong or right, there is no before or after

marriage and cause.someone like to work along while some like to have a cooperation. Just have the same aim and wor hard for it. So weather you are vintage dress for wedding before or after,I do believe there will be a uique wedding dresses.

 

[pnewton]

If an act is immoral now then it’s immoral then. What changes is the culpability of that act. I certainly agree that the culpability for the bombing of Hiroshima was significantly reduced. This is because there was no clear direction from the Church in regard to nuclear weapons. HOWEVER that does not in any way affect the morality of the act.

This argument assumes that morality changes over time, which in turn assumes that God Himself changes over time. Neither assumption is true. What is moral now was immoral fifty years ago, 500 years ago, and 5,000 years ago.

Facts change. People change. Weapons change. Our ability to kill each other changes. But God doesn’t change, and neither does morality.

Yet God himself ordered the indiscriminate destruction of a city, men women an children, or do we forget Jericho and Ai? So, this is at least one case of that which is immoral today, was morally permissible at another time. So while I know that God does not change, I do not accept that morality never changes. There are eternal moral principles, but the application of morality does in fact change. Otherwise, it we have an immoral God or a fictional Old Testament.

 

[x1980x]

The usual justification for using the atomic bomb against two Japanese cities is that it saved at least a million American lives. However, using the exact same reasoning, then this would also be justified–if the Japanese had developed the atomic bomb first and used it on two American cities–say Washington and New York City–and saved at least a million Japanese lives, they would have been morally justified doing this. Still today, in 2011, they would be justified in saying that it was morally right to use the atomic bomb against U.S. cities then.

The problem with this is that Japan was the aggressor and had ATTACKED the United States, unprovoked. Japan had no “just war” grounds against the United States. The United States retaliated, and attacked Japan to protect itself and other countries that Japan had attacked.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Reported post #341

 

[Warrior1979]

Can you kill an innocent child to use its organs to save the lives of 20 other people? Assume that it’s the only way to save their lives; accordingly, letting the child live kills 20 other people.

I would refuse to kill the child (why? because it’s immoral to attempt to achieve good by doing evil; and killing an innocent person on purpose is evil). Therefore, “Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

Naturally, you’re sanitizing the argument to make a point.

 

[Warrior1979]

The difference lies in the intent. Deliberately killing innocents is immoral. Unavoidably killing innocents is unfortunate but not necessarily immoral.

Is your point that Truman said “Hey, let’s blow up Hiroshima because that’s where they innocents are located”?

 

[Warrior1979]

The problem with this is that Japan was the aggressor and had ATTACKED the United States, unprovoked. Japan had no “just war” grounds against the United States. The United States retaliated, and attacked Japan to protect itself and other countries that Japan had attacked.

Forget the U.S…it’s completely insignificant to what the Japanese did to China. In fact, dropping nukes on Japan is insignificant to what Japan did to China. As one example, the Rape of Nanjing may be the most brutal and inhumane event of the 20th century.

 

[Godfollower]

Naturally, you’re sanitizing the argument to make a point.

Well, yes, I’m trying to make a point. That point is that the statement

I completely disagree with the line of morality that concludes

“Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

Is an incorrect theological analysis.

 

[Godfollower]

Is your point that Truman said “Hey, let’s blow up Hiroshima because that’s where they innocents are located”?

No; that’s not it. The U.S. targeted Hiroshima because it was a large urban area of at least three miles in diameter; and the psychological effect was a large part of the plan (see my Post 312 for the quoted document).

In other words, they deliberately chose a target containing a large number of innocent civilians in order to achieve a “better” effect in the war.

That’s killing innocent civilians in order to win a war, which is doing an evil act in hopes that good will result.

And that’s immoral.

 

[Godfollower]

Forget the U.S…it’s completely insignificant to what the Japanese did to China. In fact, dropping nukes on Japan is insignificant to what Japan did to China. As one example, the Rape of Nanjing may be the most brutal and inhumane event of the 20th century.

Yes; we’ve already agreed that other mass killings were worse.

That doesn’t make this action good.

 

[Warrior1979]

Well, yes, I’m trying to make a point.

The point conveniently eliminates all relevant circumstances.

Is an incorrect theological analysis.

It was in response to the typical fallback argument that arises in these type of discussion, which is when a person becomes intellectually challenged and can’t support their position, they pull out the “you disagree with the Church,” “you’re not a Catholic,” “…fill in the blank…” card.

 

[Warrior1979]

And that’s immoral.

The fact is the alternative is also immoral. There is simply no way around it.

There was no good choice. It is simply choosing between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Godfollower]

The fact is the alternative is also immoral. There is simply no way around it.

There was no good choice. It is simply choosing between the lesser of two evils.

No, that’s incorrect. If the choice facing the Allies is (A) Invade, which will cost millions of combatants’ lives and will probably result in the deaths of millions of noncombatants through the vicissitudes of war (“collateral damage”) before we finally conquer the entire country, or (B) Drop nuclear weapons on inhabited cities, which will cost hundreds of thousands of lives, combatant and noncombatant alike, in hopes that the devastation will demoralize the enemy into surrendering, then (A) is a moral choice, and (B) is an immoral choice. That means your only choice is (A).

(I realize there were other options; I’m simplifying to focus the debate).

The relevant consideration is the principle of double effect, discussed several times higher in the thread. Actions that produce unintended innocent deaths are unfortunate but not necessarily immoral; actions that produce intended innocent deaths are always immoral.

 

[Godfollower]

The point conveniently eliminates all relevant circumstances.

It was in response to the typical fallback argument that arises in these type of discussion, which is when a person becomes intellectually challenged and can’t support their position, they pull out the “you disagree with the Church,” “you’re not a Catholic,” “…fill in the blank…” card.

Well, okay; not sure what you’re trying to say here. The bottom line is this: you can’t affirmatively do evil, even if it results in fewer lives lost.

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.

 

[Warrior1979]

No, that’s incorrect. If the choice facing the Allies is (A) Invade, which will cost millions of combatants’ lives and will probably result in the deaths of millions of noncombatants through the vicissitudes of war (“collateral damage”) before we finally conquer the entire country, or (B) Drop nuclear weapons on inhabited cities, which will cost hundreds of thousands of lives, combatant and noncombatant alike, in hopes that the devastation will demoralize the enemy into surrendering, then (A) is a moral choice, and (B) is an immoral choice. That means your only choice is (A).

In other words, a greater number of deaths of innocents is completely moral provided one holds to a particular philosophy. The innocents are only to be considered when deciding on an action; after that, they are irrelevant even if they are all killed in the end.

 

[Godfollower]

In other words, a greater number of deaths of innocents is completely moral provided one holds to a particular philosophy. The innocents are only to be considered when deciding on an action; after that, they are irrelevant even if they are all killed in the end.

You seem to be arguing for the ethics theory of consequentialism: determine which course of action will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and that action is morally required, while all others are immoral.

The problem is that consequentialism was debunked centuries ago, because it can be used to justify slavery, war, whatever you like, so long as it arguably produces “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (e.g., if enslaving 10% of the population will make the other 90% happy, then it’s moral).

Catholic theology teaches that consequences are relevant to the morality of a proposed action, but so is the intent of the actor. From the Catechism (which is a useful summary of 2,000 years of Catholic theology):

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

***1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it; ***

• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56

• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶¶ 1786-89.

The bottom line is this:

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶¶ 1755-56.

You seem to be saying that the circumstances (saving the lives of the soldiers who otherwise would’ve had to invade) make the action (dropping the atomic bomb on an inhabited city) good. I’m saying that, in classic Catholic theology going back many centuries, willfully killing innocent people is evil, no matter the purpose.

 

[Warrior1979]

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

Once again, common sense is contained in the Catechism. This is exactly what I’ve been saying.

 

[Godfollower]

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

I don’t see how. I thought you were arguing that dropping the atomic bombs on inhabited cities was moral. I’m saying that it was immoral – because the object (dropping the bomb on a city inhabited among others by innocents) is evil.

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.

Catechism ¶ 2261.

 

[Warrior1979]

I don’t see how. I thought you were arguing that dropping the atomic bombs on inhabited cities was moral.

No I did not. I claim it is the lesser of two evils.

I’m saying that it was immoral – because the object (dropping the bomb on a city inhabited among others by innocents) is evil. 2261.

You select Choice B.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

According to the above, your Choice B is immoral, since the result of the action kills more innocents.

Both Choice A and Choice B are immoral. I selected Choice A because it results in the fewer number of deaths of innocents. You choose Choice B because you consider the goodness of the object only; the result doesn’t matter. The section of Catechism you quoted is contrary to your reasoning since you are not including all factors.

 

[JaneGrey]

No, invasion was also possible, but that too would have resulted in excessive civilian casualties. Now the targeting of Hiroshima, as opposed to another target more isolated, is of concern. But then again, I think we are exercising hindsight on this question by applying a 1984 teaching to 1945. Hiroshima was hardly the first civilian area to be targeted. If a country at war deliberately avoids all civilian areas, then all their enemy need do is keep key military targets protected by human shields. This is not what the Catechism teaching is.

But would an invasion have resulted in survivors battling with cancer decades after, as the atom bomb did? I suppose I am also looking at it with a view of what should or should not be repeated in the future.

I think both using Hiroshima as a target and the use of the A bomb are what makes this stand out to people.