As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Ghosty]

You are avoiding the question.

Perhaps I should be more specific…but I suspect you well know what I am asking.

And like your shying away from the logical conclusion of your argument, it leads me to believe you know your own argument to be in error.

No, I really don’t get what you’re asking. I said that I do lump the Allied commanders and those others together, but I also highlighted precisely what I mean by that. I don’t see how I’ve avoided the question at all, unless you mean the “are you comfortable part” to which I’ll now answer yes, perfectly. I thought this was implied in my previous answer, but I can see how it might not have come across. I’m quite comfortable with my lack of knowledge on the inner workings of others minds; I’ve come to accept the fact that I rarely have the knowledge needed to judge another’s moral state.

In my Melkite tradition we don’t have a different set of prayers for those we dislike from those whom we do, nor for those whom we admire from those who’s lives were despicable.

If you’re trying to ask if I would consider the Allied commanders monsters like those other men then the answer is no because I don’t consider any of them to be monsters. If you mean something else then out with it, because I’ve answered every question of yours directly so far and I’ll happily do it again.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

If you’re trying to ask if I would consider the Allied commanders monsters like those other men then the answer is no because I don’t consider any of them to be monsters

Why not?
Remember this:
“We’re not talking about misidentification in the heat of battle, nor getting caught up in the moment. We’re talking about deliberate killing of non-combatants for an end.”

Seems to me you have done a pretty fair job of arguing these men into monster status.

 

[Ghosty]

Why not?
Remember this:
“We’re not talking about misidentification in the heat of battle, nor getting caught up in the moment. We’re talking about deliberate killing of non-combatants for an end.”

Seems to me you have done a pretty fair job of arguing these men into monster status.

No, I was talking about actions, not moral culpability. One can deliberately kill non-combatants and still not meet the standard or mortal sin, but deliberate killing of non-combatants is still an objectively graver act than the others.

You are reading more into what I say than I’ve actually expressed. You have a category of “monster status” that my arguments place these men into; I don’t have that category so my arguments aren’t directed towards putting these men in that category. As I said before, if you have a the ability to judge the moral status of any of these men and categorize them as monsters then that’s on you and your thinking, not on me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

You have a category of “monster status” that my arguments place these men into; I don’t have that category so my arguments aren’t directed towards putting these men in that category.

I see.

So we can describe the waddle of the duck, we can describe the quack.
But because we do not have the word ‘duck’ in our vocabulary, we obviously cannot mean a duck.

 

[Ghosty]

I see.

So we can describe the waddle of the duck, we can describe the quack.
But because we do not have the word ‘duck’ in our vocabulary, we obviously cannot mean a duck.

Not at all similar. It’s not about vocabulary or definition, it’s about me not having all the facts. Someone’s acts can be monstrous, but without a good idea of the inner workings of their mind I’m not willing to make a moral judgement of them. Since I don’t have that knowledge about anyone I don’t categorize anyone as monsters. That’s just me, you are free to do whatever you want.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

Not at all similar. It’s not about vocabulary or definition, it’s about me not having all the facts.

And yet you judged the morality of the actions of those individuals.

Are you now saying that you judged prematurely?

Perhaps you do not have all of the information necessary to conclude immorality?

Perhaps you should take your conclusion of the immorality of the bomb drops and replace it with a firm “I do not have enough facts to determine the morality.”

 

[Ghosty]

And yet you judged the morality of the actions of those individuals.

Are you now saying that you judged prematurely?

Perhaps you do not have all of the information necessary to conclude immorality?

Perhaps you should take your conclusion of the immorality of the bomb drops and replace it with a firm “I do not have enough facts to determine the morality.”

Once again you seem to be missing the distinction, and once again I’ll suggest you to read up on culpability and Catholic moral teaching.

An action has an objective morality regardless of the culpability of the actor. Abortion is objectively evil, but not everyone who gets an abortion has sinned mortally. Targeting non-combatants is objectively evil, but not everyone who targets non-combatants has sinned mortally.

We have the information necessary to conclude that non-combatants were directly and intentionally targeted in the bombings, that much has been provided to us by the Targeting Committee. That settles the objective moral question. We don’t, or at least I don’t, have sufficient information to determine the moral knowledge and duress of the people who made the decision to drop the bombs, so I can’t judge their personal moral state.

Now if you want to deal with the hypothetical of someone who knows that targeting non-combatants is wrong, but thinks that in this case it’s warranted because more people will die if they don’t, then I’ll say they are guilty of grave evil, and it’s precisely that kind of argument I am opposing on this thread because I care about the souls of those who make it. I don’t know if this hypothetical applies to any of the people in the chain of command for dropping the bombs which is why I don’t make such statements about them; it’s not that I think it’s impossible to have such knowledge about another’s moral culpability, I’m just saying that in this case I don’t have such knowledge.

Peace and God bless!

 

[maber43]

Remember Pearl Harbor!

 

[vz71]

Once again you seem to be missing the distinction, and once again I’ll suggest you to read up on culpability and Catholic moral teaching.

I can’t say I did not try, I even got you to admit that you do not have all the facts.

But you seem unable or unwilling to address that those facts you do not have can change much of what you have judged.

But it is interesting to note the compartmentalization going on in identifying the behavior and actions of monsters but unwillingness to state the obvious conclusion thereof.

Perhaps you do in fact know that without all of the facts you cannot say and the argument is fatally flawed.

Either way.

Go with God.
I am finished here.
Perhaps there is another thread where we can agree.

 

[Ghosty]

I can’t say I did not try, I even got you to admit that you do not have all the facts.

I have always said that I don’t have all the facts about the state of mind of the people who ordered the attacks. That doesn’t change the judgement of the attacks themselves. I don’t see what you accomplished in getting me to restate what I’ve always said.

But you seem unable or unwilling to address that those facts you do not have can change much of what you have judged.

Please explain how the state of mind of the attackers changes the objective morality of the attacks. I really am interested in hearing how this can be.

But it is interesting to note the compartmentalization going on in identifying the behavior and actions of monsters but unwillingness to state the obvious conclusion thereof.

There is no compartmentalization because I don’t know that the people who ordered the monstrous acts were themselves “monsters”. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren’t, I just don’t know.

Perhaps you do in fact know that without all of the facts you cannot say and the argument is fatally flawed.

Either way.

Go with God.
I am finished here.
Perhaps there is another thread where we can agree.

Again, you’re going to have to show how not knowing whether or not someone is culpable affects the argument about whether an action is objectively evil. In Catholic moral teaching the intention does not determine the morality of the action, and if you don’t know this then you really should read up a bit more on Catholic moral teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Tbrightson]

Well I think the intentional killing of civilians is immorial per Church teaching; wether it be by rifleshot or nuke.

Wether its a war crime is another matter. The Church does not define what a “war crime” is as it is not a secular judicial authority. Defining a war crime is Caesars job, not the Church’s

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Vz71,

Let me offer a comment or two…

Ghostly is correct in saying that we can not judge the moral state of anyone’s soul or where their eternal ‘address’ is. Now, he keeps saying that he does not have the necessary information - and I think this is what is complicating the discussion. No one at any time knows the state of anyone else’s soul either when they commit an act or when they face their Divine Judge. Only God is in the ‘judging business’ of souls.

Vz71 is correct in saying that the acts of those that participated in genocide and crimes against humanity did objectively evil acts. These particular acts tended to be sandwiched inside of the major immoral act of war itself. No matter what happens, innocent, non-combatants will be killed simply because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, do we place on some kind of balance scale the acts of war done by the Axis on one side and the acts of the Allies on the other? Maybe - but, unlike a real weight scale - the results will be mixed. When the Greeks conquered the known world - they did so in many instances because entire fortified cities simply surrendered. These cities did this because of the total massacre of the city that put up resistance. When the Romans conquered the Greeks they used a similar technique - just as barbaric and unjust, but just as effective. In our own country, Indian victories are still called massacres. A lot of judgment goes into what is placed in the scales.

Make no mistake about it. I think Truman took the correct action - and those subordinates who made the targeting decisions, trained the pilots, flew the planes and did whatever else was necessary to end this war. The killing of innocents as a direct result of military action is profoundly tragic - and a real evil - and, because it is an evil it is an objective offense to God. Does this put the ‘monsters’ of the Axis on a different (and much lower) plane then the ‘good guys’ of the Allies? Of course! But, remember, it is the winners that get to write the history.

God bless

And yet you judged the morality of the actions of those individuals.

Are you now saying that you judged prematurely?

Perhaps you do not have all of the information necessary to conclude immorality?

Perhaps you should take your conclusion of the immorality of the bomb drops and replace it with a firm “I do not have enough facts to determine the morality.”

 

[vz71]

I have always said that I don’t have all the facts about the state of mind of the people who ordered the attacks. That doesn’t change the judgement of the attacks themselves. I don’t see what you accomplished in getting me to restate what I’ve always said.

What was said was “I do not have all the facts.”
And it is correct. The facts behind the drop, all the actions previous, and the actions and motivations of those involved are not known.
Without such, it is not possible to lay claim that the action itself is an evil.

In Catholic moral teaching the intention does not determine the morality of the action, and if you don’t know this then you really should read up a bit more on Catholic moral teaching.

No one has made that claim.
And it is dishonest to state otherwise.

 

[vz71]

Well I think the intentional killing of civilians is immorial per Church teaching; wether it be by rifleshot or nuke.

You are correct.

The question becomes one of who exactly is a civilian.
And unfortunately, that answer is so firmly into gray that it is difficult to determine morality of the act.

 

[Ghosty]

What was said was “I do not have all the facts.”
And it is correct. The facts behind the drop, all the actions previous, and the actions and motivations of those involved are not known.
Without such, it is not possible to lay claim that the action itself is an evil.

Yes it is. Motivation and previous actions do not change the morality of the later action when it’s categorically evil. Motivations, intentions and the like can’t change the objective morality of an act. What you are advocating is moral relativism and consequentialism, and both views are condemned by the Church.

In this case the only fact that is needed to know whether the action was objectively evil is that non-combatants were directly and willfully targeted. We know this fact from the declassified documents of the Targeting Committee. The culpability of the people who made the decision requires different facts, and it’s those facts that I’m lacking.

No one has made that claim.
And it is dishonest to state otherwise.

You just made that claim in this very post! Let me quote it again and highlight it for you:

The facts behind the drop, all the actions previous, and the actions and motivations of those involved are not known.
Without such, it is not possible to lay claim that the action itself is an evil.

If motivation doesn’t determine the morality of an action then it is not necessary to know it in order to claim that the action itself evil.

The question becomes one of who exactly is a civilian.
And unfortunately, that answer is so firmly into gray that it is difficult to determine morality of the act.

Incorrect. Anyone not actively participating in the fighting, even if they are capable of doing so, is not to be targeted in war. This includes women, children, elderly, and men who are trained for Ketsugo operations but haven’t yet entered combat, and those working in munitions factories. They can be accidental collateral damage, but they can’t be targeted directly. It’s in the previously cited Catholic Encyclopedia article.

This really is a long-settled question from the Catholic moral perspective; it’s just a question of whether or not people agree with the Catholic teaching on the subject that’s at issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

You just made that claim in this very post! Let me quote it again and highlight it for you:

If motivation doesn’t determine the morality of an action then it is not necessary to know it in order to claim that the action itself evil.

In all charity, I understand that there is a great deal that you are not looking at or even have knowledge of. Perhaps it is my fault that my words were ambiguous enough to allow an alternative meaning to be run with.

What you are claiming to be the meaning of my words is not the truth, and can only be considered factual if one were to overlook a great deal of factual information that is there as well as understand that there is a great deal of information necessary for the determination that is simply inaccessible.

I know it is difficult for some to believe that it is possible for a person to have a different opinion on something while still possessing the same knowledge (or perhaps greater knowledge) of Catholic teaching.

I believe this is the case here, and is the reason I am bowing out of the conversation.
Further pursuit becomes a question of honesty and charity, and it is often difficult to maintain a charitable tone when either are questioned.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ghosty,

Let me venture into this area with an analogy.

Just as an example, let’s take abortion to mean the intentional termination of a pregnancy so that the unborn child will probably die. Yes, it is a bit lose, but, I think it will hold together for our purposes. And, with this definition we see abortion as an objective evil.

A woman presents with an ectopic pregnancy (the fertilized egg has implanted in a tube and it will cause the tube to rupture if no intervention takes place. Given that such an implantation is not compatible with sustaining full development for the unborn - and the rupture of the tube may result in the death of the woman. In brief - a really bad outcome for everyone concerned. Now consider the Law of Double Effect.

If surgery is initiated to save the life of the mother, this objectively evil act (abortion) is the unintended consequence. Unlike Planned Parenthood whose sole purpose is abortion of healthy unborn children - this case is different because we have someone confronting that situation and must make a decision. The surgery is done, the woman’s life is saved but in the process the unintended consequence is the death of the unborn child.

I think such a background could be used in discussing the dropping of the bomb.

God bless

Yes it is. Motivation and previous actions do not change the morality of the later action when it’s categorically evil. Motivations, intentions and the like can’t change the objective morality of an act. What you are advocating is moral relativism and consequentialism, and both views are condemned by the Church.

In this case the only fact that is needed to know whether the action was objectively evil is that non-combatants were directly and willfully targeted. We know this fact from the declassified documents of the Targeting Committee. The culpability of the people who made the decision requires different facts, and it’s those facts that I’m lacking.

You just made that claim in this very post! Let me quote it again and highlight it for you:

If motivation doesn’t determine the morality of an action then it is not necessary to know it in order to claim that the action itself evil.

Incorrect. Anyone not actively participating in the fighting, even if they are capable of doing so, is not to be targeted in war. This includes women, children, elderly, and men who are trained for Ketsugo operations but haven’t yet entered combat, and those working in munitions factories. They can be accidental collateral damage, but they can’t be targeted directly. It’s in the previously cited Catholic Encyclopedia article.

This really is a long-settled question from the Catholic moral perspective; it’s just a question of whether or not people agree with the Catholic teaching on the subject that’s at issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

If it is true that the population was ready, willing, and able to fight in the war of aggression Japan started, then it is perfectly acceptable to view them all as enemy soldiers.

Whether or not there is a rank, or a uniform associated with the person, it is really a question of what exactly the person is thinking that determines if the person is a soldier and an acceptable target during wartime.
And that is information we simply do not have.

Now before anyone jumps off on some tangential meaning, let me make the point clearer.
Am I allowed to use deadly force against an intruder in my house that is wielding a knife? Maybe. It depends on the intruders intent…or more precisely what I can reasonably perceive the intent to be.
This particular act (killing a man) cannot be judged as sinful until we know that the intruder was a perceived threat.

Now let’s take this example a little further…
It has been pointed out in this thread that the populace was willing and able to fight.
And we have the benefit of example from other islands in which fighting occurred. The ‘civilian’ populace took up arms (or whatever was available) or they killed themselves.
So was this a population of soldiers waiting for opportunity? Or were they just hapless civilians caught in the crossfire? How can we know for certain?

As I said, there is a great deal of information here that we simply do not have access to.

 

[Ghosty]

Removal of a damaged fallopian tube is morally neutral. The child is not targeted by the the surgery, but is indeed killed by the surgery. That is an evil effect, but not an evil act, because the action is the targeting of the compromised tube.

In the atomic bombings the non-combatants were among the targets of the attacks. They were not merely unintended but unavoidable victims of an otherwise neutral act. If a factory was the target but non-combatants were likely to die in the attack.

Back to the pregnancy example, the bombings are more like a direct abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, rather than the surgical removal of a compromised tube.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

If it is true that the population was ready, willing, and able to fight in the war of aggression Japan started, then it is perfectly acceptable to view them all as enemy soldiers.

Whether or not there is a rank, or a uniform associated with the person, it is really a question of what exactly the person is thinking that determines if the person is a soldier and an acceptable target during wartime.
And that is information we simply do not have.

Now before anyone jumps off on some tangential meaning, let me make the point clearer.
Am I allowed to use deadly force against an intruder in my house that is wielding a knife? Maybe. It depends on the intruders intent…or more precisely what I can reasonably perceive the intent to be.
This particular act (killing a man) cannot be judged as sinful until we know that the intruder was a perceived threat.

Now let’s take this example a little further…
It has been pointed out in this thread that the populace was willing and able to fight.
And we have the benefit of example from other islands in which fighting occurred. The ‘civilian’ populace took up arms (or whatever was available) or they killed themselves.
So was this a population of soldiers waiting for opportunity? Or were they just hapless civilians caught in the crossfire? How can we know for certain?

As I said, there is a great deal of information here that we simply do not have access to.

Read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on War. Being ready, willing, and able to fight doesn’t make someone a legitimate target in war.

Peace and God bless!