Atomic Bomb In WWII

[pnewton]

Is murder intrinsically evil? Is mass murder intrinsically evil. CCC 2314 condemns acts of mass murder committed during war.

This is the old begging of the quesiton by using the term “murder” instead of “killing” which is more accurate. To qualify under 2314, the act must be directed at the destruction of cities. It is the motive that qualifies the act as evil.

 

[miguel]

This is the old begging of the quesiton by using the term “murder” instead of “killing” which is more accurate. To qualify under 2314, the act must be directed at the destruction of cities. It is the motive that qualifies the act as evil.

OK what do you think was the motive?

 

[GKC]

OK what do you think was the motive?

The termination of the war.

GKC

 

[VociMike]

The more important question is how leaders justify their actions to God. That’s what we’re discussing here. Which brings up a good question. If the enemy is defeated, in this case the Pacific islands freed from Japanese control, Japanese forces pushed back to Japan, is it just to continue to the point of wiping them out in a land invasion? At what point does a defensive war become a war of aggression?

Umm, China. Indochina. Mongolia. Manchuria. Korea. And I don’t know what else.

The Pacific Islands were extremely important strategically in the war, but the populations of those islands were but a small fraction of the total peoples being subjugated by the Japanese.

 

[miguel]

The termination of the war.

GKC

I agree that was one motive. I also agree that was a good motive. But a good motive does not make an act of mass murder good. Likewise, a teenage girl having an abortion so she can finish school (a good motive), does not make the act of abortion good.

 

[VociMike]

I agree that was one motive. I also agree that was a good motive. But a good motive does not make an act of mass murder good.

But to call it “mass murder” rather than “mass killing” is to assume the thing you are trying to demonstrate.

 

[miguel]

But to call it “mass murder” rather than “mass killing” is to assume the thing you are trying to demonstrate.

The Church is condemning something in CCC 2314. CCC 2314 is part of the 5th Commandment section. The 5th Commandment deals with different types of murder (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, unjust war, etc.) Is it not reasonable to assume that what the Church condemns in CCC 2314 are acts of mass murder committed during war? I think that’s obvious.

 

[GKC]

I agree that was one motive. I also agree that was a good motive. But a good motive does not make an act of mass murder good. Likewise, a teenage girl having an abortion so she can finish school (a good motive), does not make the act of abortion good.

To use the word in a slightly different sense, the ends are not proportionate, in the examples. In one case, finish school. In the other, preclude the death of several millions of humans.

Any continuance of the war against Japan that was even theoretically possible, say from around Jan 1945, would have been open to precisely the same moral objection that the atomic bombs were (indeed, the fire bombings of Tokyo in Mar-Jun 45 are a parallel case, differing only the the economy). The same categories of individuals would have died, with the addition of a huge number of allied military, under any other scenario. The only difference, with respect to the Japanese dead, would have been the absolute numbers who died (roughly 4-5 million more) and how protracted their deaths would have been.

Keep in mind that I do not try to convince you or any RC not to follow the moral teachings of the RCC, assuming they are rightly understood. But, as stated, for humanitarian reasons I would make certain that such doctrine would never affect national policy. Be parsimonious with death. It’s hard to reverse it. And hard to convince the odd millions or so who would have died had your understanding prevailed, that their deaths were a reasonable price to pay to satisfy your own morality.

To the extent that this becomes a intramural RC thread, I’ll step aside, unless there is some issue of historical fact I can add. What the RCC teaches on such a matter (as on all matters) is of interest, but not definitive, for me.

GKC

 

[Caesar517]

The Church is condemning something in CCC 2314. CCC 2314 is part of the 5th Commandment section. The 5th Commandment deals with different types of murder (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, unjust war, etc.) Is it not reasonable to assume that what the Church condemns in CCC 2314 are acts of mass murder committed during war? I think that’s obvious.

The Church obviously does condemn mass murder, but what makes you think that killing and murder are the same? Not all killing is murder (war in particular). When we dropped the bombs, we were not trying to kill civilians.

 

[sodak]

I find it interesting that this question was posted on Memorial Day weekend. As a veteran myself, I find that extremely offensive. Anything that detracts from honoring the sacrifice of our brave men and women who have died defending us is disgusting.

 

[miguel]

The Church obviously does condemn mass murder, but what makes you think that killing and murder are the same? Not all killing is murder (war in particular). When we dropped the bombs, we were not trying to kill civilians.

I don’t think killing and murder are the same. That’s why I used the word murder. Do you think the Church had specific acts in mind in CCC 2314? What do you think is meant by the term “scientific weapons”?

 

[Caesar517]

I find it interesting that this question was posted on Memorial Day weekend. As a veteran myself, I find that extremely offensive. Anything that detracts from honoring the sacrifice of our brave men and women who have died defending us is disgusting.

I thank you for your service, but I fail to see why this would be offensive. I don’t think this discussion detracts from honoring the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers. We are not criticising or disparaging our soldiers. We are just discussing the morality of similar wartime actions.

 

[Caesar517]

I don’t think killing and murder are the same. That’s why I used the word murder. Do you think the Church had specific acts in mind in CCC 2314? What do you think is meant by the term “scientific weapons”?

Why do you think civilian casualties are murder when they are not the intended target?

 

[miguel]

I find it interesting that this question was posted on Memorial Day weekend. As a veteran myself, I find that extremely offensive. Anything that detracts from honoring the sacrifice of our brave men and women who have died defending us is disgusting.

This is a disturbing discussion. But my participation in it was not intended to detract from your service or those who have died defending our country. I have nothing but respect for you and them. The morality of specific acts of war and the associated decision-making that lead to them has been addressed by the Church. Since so many human lives are at stake, it is important for all of us to think clearly about these issues. One way to do that is open discussion.

 

[miguel]

Why do you think civilian casualties are murder when they are not the intended target?

You can’t drop an atom bomb on a city and claim that civilians aren’t the target. That is nonsense. And I’m done with this discussion.

 

[pnewton]

I noticed that no one has answered the question that if the destruction of whole cities is always evil, how does on explain the cities of the plains that God demanded be erased down to the last child.

 

[miguel]

I noticed that no one has answered the question that if the destruction of whole cities is always evil, how does on explain the cities of the plains that God demanded be erased down to the last child.

As his creatures, God has dominion over all of our lives.

 

[VociMike]

You can’t drop an atom bomb on a city and claim that civilians aren’t the target. That is nonsense. And I’m done with this discussion.

It’s not that black and white, and we do an injustice to those who actually faced these life-and-death decisions to act otherwise. Enemy cities during wartime have civilians. They also have military personnel and installations. And they have munition factories and other military-related industries.

As soon as we start thinking the morality of these decisions is a slam-dunk one way or the other, I think we’re not being intellectually honest or doing justice to the humanity of those who had to make the decisions.

 

[miguel]

It’s not that black and white, and we do an injustice to those who actually faced these life-and-death decisions to act otherwise. Enemy cities during wartime have civilians. They also have military personnel and installations. And they have munition factories and other military-related industries.

As soon as we start thinking the morality of these decisions is a slam-dunk one way or the other, I think we’re not being intellectually honest or doing justice to the humanity of those who had to make the decisions.

If you were given the order to drop an atom bomb on Hiroshima, would you do it?

 

[VociMike]

If you were given the order to drop an atom bomb on Hiroshima, would you do it?

At that time, almost certainly. Just as I would almost certainly have dropped conventional explosives. I suspect the moral calculus would have seemed quite clear then. Which is not to say that it is as clear in retrospect.

Personally, I wish mass bombing of cities had never happened. But I have no idea how that would have affected the conduct of the war. And I’m very reluctant to second-guess, from the comfort of my sofa, those who were fighting a world war.