If the Catholic Church was pacifist, you wouldn’t find criteria for legitimate defense by military force (i.e., just war) in its moral teaching. The Church is not pacifist. In CCC 2314, it exercises its Christ-given authority to teach in his name and to condemn specific acts of war, not all acts of war. “Whatsoever you hold bound on earth will be held bound in heaven…”And this will be my last post in the thread. I already posted my thoughts a few pages back, which the pacifists have blithely ignored, as usual.
I agree that CCC 2314 is a statement of traditional Catholic teaching in light of modern military technologies and capabilities. I just didn’t get that out of your previous comment.Sorry. I think your point was valid. But I also think the Church refined (not changed) its moral position based on its consideration of events in the recent past. Looking back at the horrible destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, as others have pointed out, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, the Church did pass judgement on those acts. That’s what CCC 2314 is all about.
The first part of that paragraph of CCC2314 says:miguel, you seem to be stuck on the idea that CCC 2314 declares the dropping of an atomic bomb to be an intrinsically evil act. That is not what it says. It says that the danger of modern warfare (the presence of nuclear weapons) provides the opportunity to commit such crimes.
I fully believe that dropping an atomic bomb can be immoral. I do not think that it always is.
It says Every act. Not some acts. “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”2314 "**Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas **with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110
Now I suppose a Hydrogen Bomb could be used in a moral way in non-inhabited vast areas i.e. to divert an asteroid about to hit the planet. But it could never be moral to use in “vast areas with their inhabitants”.Dictionary:
**unequivocal **
un’e·quiv’o·cal
adj. Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous.
Yes, the **PRESENCE **of nuclear weapons provides the opportunity to commit such crimes.A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2329 “The arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race and the harm it inflicts on the poor is more than can be endured” (GS 81 § 3).
That is not true. The directed indicates intent of target. That may or may not be the destruction of civilians.The first part of that paragraph of CCC2314 says:
It says Every act. Not some acts. “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”
The Atom bomb, the Hydrogen bomb, Chemical & Biological Warfare are “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants” and as such are a crime against God and man, and merit firm and unequivocal condemnation.
Actually, the CCC prefaces that with the word ‘indiscriminate’, which, in the authoritative Latin, means having a lack of discernment. So that is also a moral qualifier.The USE of nuclear weapons is another thing altogether. Their use in “destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants” is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation
miguel can’t understand this. Worsley is right, this is a pointless discussion.Actually, the CCC prefaces that with the word ‘indiscriminate’, which, in the authoritative Latin, means having a lack of discernment. So that is also a moral qualifier.
In other words, you have to really, REALLY, examine all your options before you can commit to using such weapons.
But it doesn’t exclude their use.
The US participated in bombing the factories. The destruction of the city was all British.The Dresden Fire Storm was a joint Allied operation. U.S. bombers participated as well. Read here.
I think it’s a good point that a massive aerial bombing can do just as much damage as a nuclear warhead. The development of the atomic bomb just made it much easier.
Since more civilians died in the fire bombings in March-June 1945, you certainly have a point, within the context of this discussion. And Lemay (who initially opposed the use of the bombs, on the grounds he could bring Japan to its knees with conventional bombing) was en route to increasing his fleet of B-29s, plus transfers of ETO B-17s and B-24s, and a token RAF force, to be added, to a total of around 12-15 thousand planes. This can be compared to the 2000+ B-29s that were used from March-August 1945. The resulting death total from continued conventional bombing, without regard to the cost of a land invasion, would have been staggering.Yes. I alluded earlier to the current teaching of the Church grew from its previous teaching against unrestricted warfare. I actually have a greater problem with the fire-bombing of Tokyo than the two bombs.
Brendan,That is not true. The directed indicates intent of target. That may or may not be the destruction of civilians.
All cases of when the civilians are the target, when the attack is directed at them are immoral.
However, when the target is military, and the principal has made efforts to reduce or eliminate civilian casualties (such as warning of an impeding attack on a nearby military target) then there in no moral fault.
Actually, the CCC prefaces that with the word ‘indiscriminate’, which, in the authoritative Latin, means having a lack of discernment. So that is also a moral qualifier.
In other words, you have to really, REALLY, examine all your options before you can commit to using such weapons.
But it doesn’t exclude their use.
Just a quick note, morally the stats of how many might have died in a “land invasion” are utterly irrelevant. Whether 10 men or 1,000,000,000,000 men would have died in a land invasion does not change the morality in any way of the act of the atomic bombs. What matters is if the act itself was moral or immoral. If it was immoral, then all the good consequences in the world cannot make it morally permissible.Since more civilians died in the fire bombings in March-June 1945, you certainly have a point, within the context of this discussion. And Lemay (who initially opposed the use of the bombs, on the grounds he could bring Japan to its knees with conventional bombing) was en route to increasing his fleet of B-29s, plus transfers of ETO B-17s and B-24s, and a token RAF force, to be added, to a total of around 12-15 thousand planes. This can be compared to the 2000+ B-29s that were used from March-August 1945. The resulting death total from continued conventional bombing, without regard to the cost of a land invasion, would have been staggering.
And it should be kept in mind that the number of Japanese civilians who died in the invasion and battle for Okinawa (first of the home islands) exceeded the total deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For a minature snapshot of what Operation DOWNFALL would have cost, as shown on Okinawa, read Fiefer’s TENNOZAN.
GKC
Does this mean that allowing a million or more Japanese (most of them civilians) to die in the land invasion (not sure why you put scare quotes around it - are you suggesting it wasn’t a reality?), and hundreds of thousands of Allies to die, and another million Chinese (most of them civilians) to die, would have been more moral? That was the choice faced back then. I’d honestly like to hear your explanation as to how allowing a few million civilian deaths would have been more moral.Just a quick note, morally the stats of how many might have died in a “land invasion” are utterly irrelevant. Whether 10 men or 1,000,000,000,000 men would have died in a land invasion does not change the morality in any way of the act of the atomic bombs. What matters is if the act itself was moral or immoral. If it was immoral, then all the good consequences in the world cannot make it morally permissible.
If the act of dropping the bombs was immoral, then it doesn’t matter how many might have been saved, it is still immoral. Let’s use a different example.Does this mean that allowing a million or more Japanese (most of them civilians) to die in the land invasion (not sure why you put scare quotes around it - are you suggesting it wasn’t a reality?), and hundreds of thousands of Allies to die, and another million Chinese (most of them civilians) to die, would have been more moral? That was the choice faced back then. I’d honestly like to hear your explanation as to how allowing a few million civilian deaths would have been more moral.
Oh, and let’s also add the probable subjugation of a large portion of the surviving Japanese under a Russian-backed Communist dictatorship. See North Korea for an example.
But that’s not what I asked. I asked quite sincerely if allowing millions of civilians to be killed was more moral. More moral than destroying a city (upon which leaflets were dropped urging civilians to evacuate) with the intent of ending the war.If the act of dropping the bombs was immoral, then it doesn’t matter how many might have been saved, it is still immoral. Let’s use a different example.
Let’s say, if I execute ONE japanese child, then, with total certainty, ALL of Japan will immediately surrender and millions of lives will be saved. Is it moral to execute the child? No.
The discussion of whether the atomic bombs were moral or not needs to revolve around the actual act of dropping the bombs, who was killed, and what was intended. How many may or may not have been saved is irrelevant, unless of course, one is a heterodox catholic who subscribes to the error of proportionalism.
Indiscriminate does not describe “intent”. It is an adjective not a qualifier. “Directed to” is a preposition and is also not a qualifier and does not describe intent.That is not true. The ***directed indicates intent ***of target. That may or may not be the destruction of civilians.
All cases of when the civilians are the target, when the attack is directed at them are immoral.
However, when the target is military, and the principal has made efforts to reduce or eliminate civilian casualties (such as warning of an impeding attack on a nearby military target) then there in no moral fault.
Actually, the CCC prefaces that with the word ‘indiscriminate’, which, in the authoritative Latin, means having a lack of discernment. So that is also a moral qualifier.
In other words, you have to really, REALLY, examine all your options before you can commit to using such weapons.
But it doesn’t exclude their use.
Adjectives typically answer the following questions: What kind? Which one? How many?**indiscriminate **
in·dis·crim·i·nate
Function: adjective
1 a: not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment b: haphazard, random
The use of the word indiscriminate in this sentence is an adjective describing “destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants” and is part of a prepositional phrase. Adjectives always appear immediately before the noun or noun phrase that they modify. It is answering what kind of “destruction of whole cities or vast areas”.Every act of war (noun or subject) / directed to (preposition ) / the indiscriminate (adj) destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants (prepositional phrase) / is (verb) a crime against God …
The very nature of Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Warfare is indiscriminate “in that they could not be directed at any target smaller than an entire city”. Again, this is not referring at all to “prudential” judgment, but to the nature of the weapon.Customary international law also prohibits the use of indiscriminate weapons. An indiscriminate weapon is one that cannot be directed at a legitimate military objective. The V-2 rockets used by Germany in World War II were indiscriminate weapons, in that they could not be directed at any target smaller than an entire city. After the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. Department of Defense reported to Congress that the SCUD missiles used by Iraq (which were not very much more accurate than the V-2) were indiscriminate, and that their use constituted a war crime. crimesofwar.org/thebook/weapons.html
If the act of destroying the city was immoral, then yes, allowing millions to be killed in an invasion (which would be moral) would be “more moral”.But that’s not what I asked. I asked quite sincerely if allowing millions of civilians to be killed was more moral. More moral than destroying a city (upon which leaflets were dropped urging civilians to evacuate) with the intent of ending the war.
I agree.BTW, I don’t think the “atomic” factor even comes in to question here, as the technology already existed to destroy cities without atomic weapons.
OK, why?If the act of destroying the city was immoral, then yes, allowing millions to be killed in an invasion (which would be moral) would be “more moral”.
Because if an act is immoral, it can never be done even if it removes the future possibility of the death of millions.OK, why?
And again with the quotes, what’s up with that?
But this sounds like “it’s immoral because it’s immoral”. I think most people would like more understanding than that.Because if an act is immoral, it can never be done even if it removes the future possibility of the death of millions.
OKI didn’t mean anything negative with the quotes. I just thought it made sense.
Maybe this from the CCC will help:But this sounds like “it’s immoral because it’s immoral”. I think most people would like more understanding than that.
So, the question at hand seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong):
Why is is less moral to destroy a city and end a war (with civilians killed as a result), than to prolong the war before ending it with an invasion (with a great many more civilians killed as a result)?
In both cases there is property destruction, military deaths and civilian deaths. In both cases the goal is to end the war. So what tips the morality scales in favor of the latter?
OK
Sorry, that doesn’t help at all. Maybe you could walk through the application of the principles step by step to the two scenarios under discussion.
Most people don’t dispute the fact that the bombs resulted in Japan’s early surrender. I sure don’t. Whether they thus saved millions of lives is speculative (and irrelevant to the morality of how we used them). Since we’re engaging in speculation, what if the atom bomb wasn’t available at the point when Japanese forces had been removed from the Pacific and we were ready to invade Japan itself? The same calculations of the cost of invasion might have lead to negotiations instead of a demand for unconditional surrender. No doubt a factor in our demand for unconditional surrender was the availability of the atom bomb.…The historical reality is that Japanese resistance during the US conquests of places like Peleliu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa indicated that millions upon millions of American and Japanese lives were going to be lost before the Pacific war ended, which conservative estimates placed as happening some time in early 1948, and liberal estimates placed as possibly late as 1955. The bombs, for all their negatives, did help tip the scales to ending the war sooner, thus saving millions of lives…