As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Godfollower]

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

You select Choice B.

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.

Okay, apparently I haven’t been clear.

Here’s the principle of double effect, which permits some actions even though they have both good and evil results:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good – it cannot be evil in itself;
   *]The only thing that one can intend is the good act – one cannot intend the foreseen bad effect;
   *]The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect – otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good; and
   *]The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.
   
   So let’s evaluate the two options we’ve been discussing. First, invasion:
   1. Invading an enemy’s country in a just war is morally good (or at least neutral);
   2. Intending to end the war by defeating enemy combtants (while presumably not aiming at noncombatants) is acceptable;
   3. The good effect is ending the war, not killing the noncombatants, and it doesn’t arise from the killing of the noncombatants; and
   4. Accidentally (or, more probably, knowingly but regretably) killing the noncombatants is not disproportionate to ending the production of munitions.
      Now let’s make the same analysis with firebombing or nuclear-bombing an entire city to force a surrender:
   5. Indiscriminate killing of all or most people in a given area without regard to whether those people were involved in the wrongdoing you’re trying to stop is evil in itself;
   6. By definition in the scenarios being discussed, the killing of civilians (including those who are by definition innocent because they are not of the age of reason) is part of the intent of the action;
   7. The hoped-for surrender is coming from the wide-spread killing, not from the loss of a munitions factory or military base; and
   8. Just from reading this thread, it is obviously an open question whether the bombing would have resulted in a net loss or net gain of life.
   In short, invasion passes the double-effect test and is therefore morally good. Dropping the nuclear bombs fails the double-effect test and is therefore immoral.
   
   You can’t do evil to accomplish good. So says the Catechism; so says Veritatis Splendor; so said Pope Paul VI; so says Romans 3:8.
   
   Killing enemy soldiers in an invasion during a just war is morally permissible, even though some noncombatants will be killed. Killing innocent civilians so that the psychological effect will help force the enemy to surrender is immoral and can’t be done.
   
   Which means that, of the two scenarios we’re discussing, there’s only one moral option. So that’s the option you have to pick.
   
   If you choose to drop the bombs because of the numbers of deaths, then (A) you’re engaging in consequentialism, which is morally bankrupt; and (B) you’re choosing to kill innocent people because you prefer the path that comes from their deaths.
   
   I’m not saying you get to choose either the goodness of the object or the consequences of the action; Catholic theology says you have to consider all three factors: the object, the end, and the circumstances. Only if all three are good (or at least neutral) can you choose that option. You cannot choose an option that fails all three.

 

[pnewton]

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 this is the wise course. Instead of trying to find moral fault with others in a context we can not even imagine, let us take the path of the Church, that is, to learn from what was done and move forward. It it the healthier approach, even if it is not as fun.

 

[Warrior1979]

Okay, apparently I haven’t been clear.

Here’s the principle of double effect, which permits some actions even though they have both good and evil results:

The act itself must be morally good – it cannot be evil in itself;

 

[SwizzleStick]

Reported post #341

The questionable post #341 has been removed and now there is a new post #341.

(I simply reported a suspect post and notified fellow posters that I have done so per forum rules, in case anyone is wondering. Usually the entire thread is removed, but in this case, my reporting post remains while the offending post has been removed, which might make folks wonder what is wrong with the post to have reported it. There is nothing wrong with post #341 now. )

Now back to the thread.

 

[smichhertz]

The intentions in both cases are good (end the war), and the end result in both cases is evil (massive death of innocents).

The main problem with the invasion is that victory is not only not guaranteed, but the unconditional surrender can be tossed out the window. It should also be noted that nearly everyone is only focusing on the U.S. and Japan. China suffered the most casualties next to the Soviet Union. The unconditional surrender effectively ended Japan’s horrific involvement in China. In fact, whereas Japan the U.S. have become great allies, China to this day is extremely angry about those events.

I personally believe there was no good choice. The path chosen ended the war, further killing, and the Japanese involvement in China, decisively. It is extremely improbable that the result would have been the same without the atomic weapons.

You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe it’s acceptable to commit an evil if you have good intentions? Yes or no?

 

[Warrior1979]

You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe it’s acceptable to commit an evil if you have good intentions? Yes or no?

No.

But the question has little to do with the issue at had, because it tosses aside all of the relevant circumstances. The Church doesn’t even sanitize the situation to this extent.

Now answer my question: “Given the choice of two situations where many people will die, with one of those situations likely resulting in a prolonged war and a greater number innocent deaths, which would you choose?”

A or B.

Given that we can ask questions that ignore relevant circumstances, and expect others to answer, this ought to be easy?

 

[smichhertz]

No.

Thank you, so you do agree with Catholic moral theology, you just don’t think it applies the same way in the case of Hiroshima. I appreciate your straightforward response.

But the question has little to do with the issue at had, because it tosses aside all of the relevant circumstances. The Church doesn’t even sanitize the situation to this extent.

Once we establish the object of the act and it’s intention, the circumstances do not change the morality of the act. Catholic moral theology clearly states that if either 1) the object or 2) the intention are bad, than the act is bad REGARDLESS of the circumstances. So the Church wouldn’t sanitize situations to the extent where it wouldn’t take in the object or intention, but once those are established and if either are immoral, than it would declare an act immoral without needing to look at circumstances.

This is why the Church can declare intrinsic evils, things like abortion and premarital sex with are always immoral, regardless of intent or circumstances.

You might benefit from reading up on Catholic moral theology:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/in-roman-catholic-moral-theology-what-is-a-moral-object/

It’s just a wordpress post, I know. But the post does a good job summarizing how moral theology works, and it’s something to get your feet wet with.

Now answer my question: “Given the choice of two situations where many people will die, with one of those situations likely resulting in a prolonged war and a greater number innocent deaths, which would you choose?”

When worded like that, I’d go with the choice that does not result in a prolonged war and greater number of innocent deaths.

However, your scenario presupposes that both choices are morally neutral, something that the Church would disagree with in the bombing of Hiroshima.

 

[pnewton]

When worded like that, I’d go with the choice that does not result in a prolonged war and greater number of innocent deaths.

However, your scenario presupposes that both choices are morally neutral, something that the Church would disagree with in the bombing of Hiroshima.

This reminds me a little of the trolley experiment. Do you hit the switch to divert the trolley from running over and killing twenty people if by doing so you aim it at one person knowing that your action will kill that one person?

 

[smichhertz]

This reminds me a little of the trolley experiment. Do you hit the switch to divert the trolley from running over and killing twenty people if by doing so you aim it at one person knowing that your action will kill that one person?

Yes I remember hearing a similar moral dilemma. The point its trying to get at is: is it better to kill more by inaction or less by deliberate action?

The problem is, that it presupposes that choices result in murder, which they would not be in that case.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is, that it presupposes that choices result in murder, which they would not be in that case.

The difference only begs the question between murder and killing.

 

[smichhertz]

The difference only begs the question between murder and killing.

To be honest, I think that’s the crux of this whole debate.

I was always taught that murder is the killing of an innocent life. Whereas killing, well, is just ending a life.

 

[pnewton]

To be honest, I think that’s the crux of this whole debate.

I was always taught that murder is the killing of an innocent life. Whereas killing, well, is just ending a life.

Add the word “intentional” and I will agree with you, as opposed to consequential killing of another human life.

I think this can be seen in the bombing in Iraq where every bomb dropped was analyzed for the appropriate size to destroy the intended target and minimize collateral damage. Innocent life was killed, though it was never the intention to target that life (quite the opposite). I am not arguing for or against Iraq, but only looking at the bombing methods.

 

[smichhertz]

Add the word “intentional” and I will agree with you, as opposed to consequential killing of another human life.

From a moral perspective, “intentional” can’t be included, because murder describes the object of an act. Which is different from the intent.

So one can unintentionally commit murder. In such a scenario, the act is immoral, but the person has no culpability for that act as they did not intend it. Hence, we have an immoral act, but no sin.

I think this can be seen in the bombing in Iraq where every bomb dropped was analyzed for the appropriate size to destroy the intended target and minimize collateral damage. Innocent life was killed, though it was never the intention to target that life (quite the opposite). I am not arguing for or against Iraq, but only looking at the bombing methods.

Understood, those bombings are justified by the double effect theory. This would not be considered murder as the object of the act in this case is bombing a legitimate military target with the unintended effect of loss of innocent life.

In effect, we agree, it’s just a matter of terminology really.

 

[Warrior1979]

The difference only begs the question between murder and killing.

I don’t believe it is. It is the difference between killing and killing. Do you kill 20 or do you kill 1? I personally believe it is evil to start killing the many for a few just because of some philosophy, and claiming it is moral.

The reality of the situation is that you hit the switch. It is easier for 1 person to get out of the way versus 20.

FWIW, in any of these discussions, I always keep the innocent in mind. Claiming that a greater number of innocent can be expended, intended or not, and regardless of philosophy, is intrinsically evil in and of itself. And lastly, there is no “unintended” innocent deaths in the discussion at hand. It is an absolute certainty innocents will die.

 

[smichhertz]

And lastly, there is no “unintended” innocent deaths in the discussion at hand. It is an absolute certainty innocents will die.

Unintended and unforeseen are two different things.

For instance, a military commander may know that a strategic bombing run will for sure kill innocent lives but still be justified and executing the bombing. This is because the actual intention is to destroy a legitimate military target with the loss of innocent life merely an unintended effect.

In that scenario the intention is to destroy a legitimate military target. The killing of innocent life is unintended and yet foreseen.

 

[pnewton]

From a moral perspective, “intentional” can’t be included, because murder describes the object of an act. Which is different from the intent.

So one can unintentionally commit murder

This is why I do not agree totally with the way you define murder, but rather prefer the formula of the Catechism "The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.( CCC#2268 )

FYI - I have always considered the trolley as a principle of double effect, but that’s another story.

In this case, Hiroshima, I have always been troubled by the need for “psycholigical effect.” I can’t help but wonder if there was another way of achieving the same effect without targeting such a major population. But again, I acknowledge this is only hindsight.

 

[smichhertz]

This is why I do not agree totally with the way you define murder, but rather prefer the formula of the Catechism "The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.( CCC#2268 )

So this gets into the difference between proximate intention and end (or remote) intention. Suffice to say that the proximate intention shapes the object, which is what the CCC is referring to.

So if that’s the intention you talk about, ignore everything I said in the post before and yes I agree with your definition of murder.

 

[Warrior1979]

Unintended and unforeseen are two different things.

It may be unintended, but it is most certainly not unforeseen. With a land invasion with a country such as Japan, it is an absolute, 100% certainty that innocents will die. Are “unintended” actions where there is an absolute certainty of the death of innocents moral?

 

[smichhertz]

Are “unintended” actions where there is an absolute certainty of the death of innocents moral?

They can be, that’s what the principle of double effect is for. See the example in my previous post. That’s an example where there is an absolute certainty of the deaths of innocents but it is still morally permissible.

 

[Warrior1979]

They can be, that’s what the principle of double effect is for. See the example in my previous post. That’s an example where there is an absolute certainty of the deaths of innocents but it is still morally permissible.

Here’s another oft-discussed example with a twist.

One can take birth control pills for medicinal purposes (technically, they wouldn’t be considered birth control pills, but medicine). There is a very small possibility that conception could take place and the egg not implant. That is considered acceptable via the principle of double effect.

Now let’s say the woman is already pregnant and wants to take those same pills for the same medicinal purpose. According to this line of thinking, it would have to be. The primary purpose of the pill is still medicinal, and an subsequent miscarriage would be unintentional. In fact, it would seem more moral since the miscarriage is not an absolute certainty, whereas in the prior case the deaths of innocents is an absolute certainty.

Am I correct in concluding this is morally permissible. If not, what is the difference?