The Harry Truman dilemma

[Al_Masetti]

The President had all the information needed avaliable to him in 1945.

How do you know that?

 

[EBSSTF4]

Very serious, I canever rationalize the murder of 200,000 mostly non-combatants.

The means justify the ends?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Very serious, I canever rationalize the murder of 200,000 mostly non-combatants.

The means justify the ends?

Re-read Post #58.

We know today based on recent scholarship that the entire Japanese population was going to fight to the death.

So, please justify the words “murder” (this was a war, not a crime against innocents) and “non-combatants” (the civilians were making weapons and were going to fight).

The Japanese had huge stocks of weapons and fuel held in reserve to use against a landing.

The Japanese were NOT going to surrender unless the Emperor personally, and the Emperor alone, made the decision to stop fighting. And even then there was an attempt at a coup to prevent the Emperor from making that decision.

We needed to persuade him to order the Japanese people to stand down.

The Emperor didn’t know how many atomic bombs we had (we only had two, although we were ramping up production) and he had to believe we would continue to lob them in until there was nothing left of Japan. That we would nuke the landing beaches and the defenders and walk the nukes in ahead of our landing forces. We had to convince him that there was absolutely no hope.

And we did.

 

[geezerbob]

Michael, your posts Numbers 57 and 58 were excellent. If the younger moralists would just read and thoroughly digest them before spouting off again, perhaps the discussion here could be a bit more civil.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Michael, your posts Numbers 57 and 58 were excellent. If the younger moralists would just read and thoroughly digest them before spouting off again, perhaps the discussion here could be a bit more civil.

Younger??

In any context but WWII this is not considered an appropriate course of action. In a Morality and Ethics class I was once involved in, A near exact scenario was described and 100% of the class was completely opposed on moral grounds. When the specifics were added over half changed their mind. We have 60 years of being told it was the right thing to do. I have read every post, and dozens of books on WWII, and quite a few more on theology, morality, and philosophy. I also have close personal relationships with people who were on all sides of the war.
Every post I have read is a simple mater of the ends justify the means, this is never an acceptable Catholic answer.

CCC

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

To argue it does require great amount of rationalization.

This being a Catholic forum I have seen nothing Catholic about these answers. I would like to see one solid source from the Church that shows this was acceptable.

CCC

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.” 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.

I would have to believe this was written with this event in mind.

And as for the purpose of the catechism

John Paul II

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

CCC

III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.[15]
12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

I have recommended it in every class I have instructed ( in the last 10 years) as a reference, few Catholic issues are not addressed in its pages.

The catechism is the closest thing to a clear-cut Catholic textbook we have. Every denomination interprets the Bible differently; we have the catechism to outline our beliefs.

With the Moral flexibility shown in this thread, we could argue indefinitely, so this will be my last post on the subject.

 

[estesbob]

Younger??

In any context but WWII this is not considered an appropriate course of action. In a Morality and Ethics class I was once involved in, A near exact scenario was described and 100% of the class was completely opposed on moral grounds. When the specifics were added over half changed their mind. We have 60 years of being told it was the right thing to do. I have read every post, and dozens of books on WWII, and quite a few more on theology, morality, and philosophy. I also have close personal relationships with people who were on all sides of the war.
Every post I have read is a simple mater of the ends justify the means, this is never an acceptable Catholic answer.

CCC

To argue it does require great amount of rationalization.

This being a Catholic forum I have seen nothing Catholic about these answers. I would like to see one solid source from the Church that shows this was acceptable.

CCC

I would have to believe this was written with this event in mind.

And as for the purpose of the catechism

John Paul II

CCC

I have recommended it in every class I have instructed ( in the last 10 years) as a reference, few Catholic issues are not addressed in its pages.

The catechism is the closest thing to a clear-cut Catholic textbook we have. Every denomination interprets the Bible differently; we have the catechism to outline our beliefs.

With the Moral flexibility shown in this thread, we could argue indefinitely, so this will be my last post on the subject.

Well this post expalins it all. Things always work out very neatly and very morally in class. Classic elitism-we must reject my fathers opinion(even though he was off the coast of Japan preparing to put his life on the line) for the squishy , politcally correct opinions of the moden day American Classroom.

 

[corvidae]

I don’t think very many people here are arguing against the bombs in general, but rather, against the targets that were chosen. It seems that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less feasable military targets than say, one of the southern islands where preparations for the invasion were underway.

It would seem the scariness of the bomb would make as much of a statement no matter where it hit. I mean, if the bomb fell anywhere, the government could say, see, it could wipe out a city.

Also, my argument was why on earth we had such fierce terms to end the war, and once the war was basically over, we changed our conditions. Perhaps it would have changed something, perhaps not.

I personally think there could have been better targets, but I also think with the mindset that most had at the time, I would have supported the dropping of the bombs.

A lone Raven

p.s.- could you look each of those people in the eyes, say you are a combatant, and kill them. If not, then your remoteness from the situation may be affecting your judgement. If you could, then you at the very least know what the bombs did, and are honest in your support.

The biggest outrage when the smithsonian was going to have an exhibit on the bombs was toward things like a childs lunchbox, or a picture of a family. These things are evidence of the humanity of those that we killed. In my opinion, if we are unwilling to look at those we killed as the people they were, then we are unwilling to accept the truth of what we did.

 

[Blackbog]

Well this post expalins it all. Things always work out very neatly and very morally in class. Classic elitism-we must reject my fathers opinion(even though he was off the coast of Japan preparing to put his life on the line) for the squishy , politcally correct opinions of the moden day American Classroom.

So, what I understand you are saying is that the Catholic Church itself is an elitist organization, because they do quite obviously disagree with “your father’s opinion.”

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Re-read Post #58.

We know today based on recent scholarship that the entire Japanese population was going to fight to the death.

So, please justify the words “murder” (this was a war, not a crime against innocents) and “non-combatants” (the civilians were making weapons and were going to fight).

The Japanese had huge stocks of weapons and fuel held in reserve to use against a landing.

The Japanese were NOT going to surrender unless the Emperor personally, and the Emperor alone, made the decision to stop fighting. And even then there was an attempt at a coup to prevent the Emperor from making that decision.

We needed to persuade him to order the Japanese people to stand down.

The Emperor didn’t know how many atomic bombs we had (we only had two, although we were ramping up production) and he had to believe we would continue to lob them in until there was nothing left of Japan. That we would nuke the landing beaches and the defenders and walk the nukes in ahead of our landing forces. We had to convince him that there was absolutely no hope.

And we did.

Al & Geezerbob:

Thank you for the compliment, but I’m afraid that you’re talking to a brick wall as theose who have decided that they disagree with yu have decided they don’t need to liten to you.

It’s because of this the argument has become circular and frustrating, and that I’m now forced to ask the MODS to close this thread down.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

So, what I understand you are saying is that the Catholic Church itself is an elitist organization, because they do quite obviously disagree with “your father’s opinion.”

E Simmons:

The Original Poster asked that we try to have a respectful conversation on the dropping of the bombs were people actually listened to each other and tried to understand what the other was saying. Estebob was trying to address the the fact that wasn’t happening and that those who opposed the dropping of the bomb were treating this as a cut and dried issue with no human reprocussions on the other side. At the same time, he was reacting to the uncivil way some posters who had personal experience of the events were being treated.

Given that was what he was what he was responding to, what does your post add to the conversation?

Are you so sure the dropping was as cut and dried as you make it to be? Could you please research (I’ve listed what the Japanese were trying to do in my posts) what would have happened if Truman had not done it and then come back with a decision?

I once opposed the dropping of the bomb, and I still support the placement of the human toll in the Smithsonian, along with what the atrocities the Japanese had done which had been excluded from the original exhibit.

Please understand, morality and ethics in war are never as cut and dried as we would like them to be. World War II was a desparate fight for survival, and those who were leading the free world, Roosevelt, Churchill and then Truman, could only hope they didn’t screw it up and allow people such as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo to win and to enslave us all.

As I posted earlier, the Japanese had weapons that could inflict terrible casaulties on the American people, and they had developed their own nuclear bomb.

And, do you really believe that, given the chance and the abiliy to deliver it and the Plague Bombs I discussed earlier, wouldn’d they have used them?

BTW, A huge Typhoon hit the Sea of Japan in early Sept., 1945 If the American fleet had been involved in the blockade, several ships would have been sunk and severely damaged…

Instead, The American Fleet was on its way home, as the “Instrument of Surrender” had already been signed on board the USS Missouri.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Blackbog]

Are you so sure the dropping was as cut and dried as you make it to be? Could you please research (I’ve listed what the Japanese were trying to do in my posts) what would have happened if Truman had not done it and then come back with a decision?

Irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. We’ve talked about this a thousand times. It’s called moral absolutism.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. We’ve talked about this a thousand times. It’s called moral absolutism.

E Simmons:

I understand the concept of Absolute versus comparative morality and the idea morality has to be applied to human situations in order to be worked out. I also see no reason why “Absolute Morality” should be used to force a nation fighting for its survival and attempting to end a war which violated almost all human norms to not use the one tool which would end that accursed war and end the death and suffering.

There is no value in talking to you about this if you will not even try to place yourself in the shoes of the people who felt compelled to make this terrible decision and whom you and others here seem so willing to judge. And I see no value in trying to talk to someone who doesn’t want to do the research and answer the questions needed to see why someone made such a terrible decision as Truman did.

It’s easier to lecture about “Absolute Morality” and to cite the Catechism.

Because of that, I see no reason for this thread to continue.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mosher]

E Simmons:

I understand the concept of Absolute versus comparative morality and the idea morality has to be applied to human situations in order to be worked out. I also see no reason why “Absolute Morality” should be used to force a nation fighting for its survival and attempting to end a war which violated almost all human norms to not use the one tool which would end that accursed war and end the death and suffering.

There is no value in talking to you about this if you will not even try to place yourself in the shoes of the people who felt compelled to make this terrible decision and whom you and others here seem so willing to judge. And I see no value in trying to talk to someone who doesn’t want to do the research and answer the questions needed to see why someone made such a terrible decision as Truman did.

It’s easier to lecture about “Absolute Morality” and to cite the Catechism.

Because of that, I see no reason for this thread to continue.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

The only licit argument that you have made thus far was the mobilization of the whole of the population of Japan to fight against an invasion. Knowing this possibly changes the moral quality of the choice made. Apart from this there is no room for discussion. One cannot do a moral evil even if it is to possibly save more lives and bring a quick end to the war. For the reasons you enumerate it is imperative that ethical judgment be detached from the emotional reaction and interaction in as much as it is possible. It is this moralizing from the subjective that brings grave error in moral decisions. While I sympathize with the complexity of the issue because it does involve the lives of individuals it is not the place of the ethicist to consider the sad stories but only the raw principles. As such it is impossible to say that the use of “the Bomb” on Japan was a morally right decision (apart from the possibility mentioned above) as never in any circumstances do ends justify means - it is for this reason the Church judged its use immoral many years ago.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In any context but WWII this is not considered an appropriate course of action. In a Morality and Ethics class I was once involved in, A near exact scenario was described and 100% of the class was completely opposed on moral grounds. When the specifics were added over half changed their mind. We have 60 years of being told it was the right thing to do. I have read every post, and dozens of books on WWII, and quite a few more on theology, morality, and philosophy. I also have close personal relationships with people who were on all sides of the war.
Every post I have read is a simple mater of the ends justify the means, this is never an acceptable Catholic answer.
.

My recollection is that Aquinas and others discussed such aspects as “double effects” and unintended consequences. Seems that the poster has no such interest.

Might want to look up Msgr. William Smith and his writings on morality.

Unhappily, there is a lot of grey area in these discussions. Not all black and white. Unhappily.

There is also an issue of pointing fingers… ascribing motives to others, when there is no possibility of our knowing the motives of others.

Issues of morality, ethics and science are not determined by vote.

 

[pro_universal]

My recollection is that Aquinas and others discussed such aspects as “double effects” and unintended consequences. Seems that the poster has no such interest.

The principle of double effect requires a permissible intention and means, with another effect that comes along with the permissible means.

You can’t say “I’m going to kill a baby to save the world, therefore, a dead baby is just a double effect since I’m really saving the world” under this theory.

There is no just war material from Aquinas that would sanction the atomic bomb. Zero.

Issues of morality, ethics and science are not determined by vote.

We don’t need a vote to look at the facts. Several hundred thousand people were killed by indiscriminate weapons. That is an obvious example of targeting non-combatants, something that is prohibited by Just War thinking.

I also see no reason why “Absolute Morality” should be used to force a nation fighting for its survival and attempting to end a war which violated almost all human norms to not use the one tool which would end that accursed war and end the death and suffering.

Because absolute means absolute, not “only in some circumstances.”

 

[Al_Masetti]

The principle of double effect requires a permissible intention and means, with another effect that comes along with the permissible means.

You can’t say “I’m going to kill a baby to save the world, therefore, a dead baby is just a double effect since I’m really saving the world” under this theory.

There is no just war material from Aquinas that would sanction the atomic bomb. Zero.

We don’t need a vote to look at the facts. Several hundred thousand people were killed by indiscriminate weapons. That is an obvious example of targeting non-combatants, something that is prohibited by Just War thinking.

Because absolute means absolute, not “only in some circumstances.”

But one can say “I need to save the mother’s life and must as part of the procedure abort the unborn baby.” The death of the baby is the undesired unintended effect.

In the military, there is the concept, rejected by some, of “colateral damage”.

In the events of WWII, there were also the issues of destroying Japanese and German military production and transportation links and military headquarters that were all intermixed with civilian populations.

Did some military leaders attack civilian populations to “destroy morale”? Yes. Was the attempt to destroy morale justified. Maybe not.

Does that eliminate all justifications for attacking targets mixed with civilian populations? No.

Were there civilians that were totally non-combatant? Yes.

Were the weapons available at the time capable of discriminating between totally non-combatant civilians and legitimate military targets? No.

Despite military claims to be able to drop a bomb into a pickle barrel, they were in fact lucky to be able to get a bomb within five miles of their targets.

So, with limited capabilities in the weapons and with an enemy that mixed legitimate military targets within civilian populations, where does that leave the military?

Is it legitimate to plant mines in the waters around a warring nation to prevent shipping of military cargo? Even if it prevents civilians from getting food and heating fuel and cause starvation and disease?

So … we were in a war … what would you, as a military planner, have done?

Specifically, knowing what was available at the time, what specific actions would you have taken?

 

[pro_universal]

But one can say “I need to save the mother’s life and must as part of the procedure abort the unborn baby.” The death of the baby is the undesired unintended effect.

This is only a marginal example, and it involves practicing medicine on the woman’s body, which is permissible. For example, if you have to treat cancer by giving anti-cancer drugs that will harm the baby, that would be a principle of double effect situation…you have a permissible goal and method (giving medicine to stop cancer), but a double effect of hurting the baby.

In the military, there is the concept, rejected by some, of “colateral damage”.

The whole point of a nuclear weapon is that it causes “collateral damage.” There is no military target, there wasn’t one in Japan especially, that requires nuclear weapons. It wasn’t like the allies were aiming for a specific military camp and just happened to use a nuke that destroyed the whole city to get it. The point was to destroy the city; that’s not collateral, that’s the intended effect.

In the events of WWII, there were also the issues of destroying Japanese and German military production and transportation links and military headquarters that were all intermixed with civilian populations.

Total war against civilians too is not allowed. The war has to be aimed against arms-bearers only in the Catholic tradition.

Does that eliminate all justifications for attacking targets mixed with civilian populations? No.

That is irrelevant here. The civilian population is the target of a nuclear weapon.

Were the weapons available at the time capable of discriminating between totally non-combatant civilians and legitimate military targets? No.

Yes there were. Invasion forces can discriminate, so can solitary bombing runs. The suggestion that the only military possibility in the war is to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians is absurd.

So … we were in a war … what would you, as a military planner, have done?

Specifically, knowing what was available at the time, what specific actions would you have taken?

Hard to say, but as a Catholic, winning wars at all costs is forbidden. There is no just war command that says “but if you can’t win the war obeying these rules, break them.”

The point of the just war theory is that these rules apply regardless, not as some sort of “tactical guidance” to be discarded at will.

Even if it meant losing the war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was wrong.

 

[wabrams]

The whole point of a nuclear weapon is that it causes “collateral damage.” There is no military target, there wasn’t one in Japan especially, that requires nuclear weapons. It wasn’t like the allies were aiming for a specific military camp and just happened to use a nuke that destroyed the whole city to get it. The point was to destroy the city; that’s not collateral, that’s the intended effec .

Youy are wrong on so many levels here, I don’t even know where to start. First off, you don’t use a nuclear bomb to cause collateral damage, you use it to VAPORIZE your enemy. At Hiroshima, we didn’t just bomb an army division, we VAPORIZED them; they were gone in an instant. When we nuked Nagasaki, we didn’t bomb an industrial sector and leave chunks of it behind for the Japanese to rebuild; we VAPORIZED it off the planet.

 

[wabrams]

Were the weapons available at the time capable of discriminating between totally non-combatant civilians and legitimate military targets? No.
pro_universal;1572718:

Yes there were. Invasion forces can discriminate, so can solitary bombing runs. The suggestion that the only military possibility in the war is to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians is absurd.

This is what you fail to grasp: if there had been an invasion, there would be no innocent civilian population. Everyone that could carry any type of weapon was being trained to repel an invasion. So except for the infants, toddlers, handicapped, and the feable, everyone else would be fighting US troops.

 

[pro_universal]

Youy are wrong on so many levels here, I don’t even know where to start. First off, you don’t use a nuclear bomb to cause collateral damage, you use it to VAPORIZE your enemy. At Hiroshima, we didn’t just bomb an army division, we VAPORIZED them; they were gone in an instant. When we nuked Nagasaki, we didn’t bomb an industrial sector and leave chunks of it behind for the Japanese to rebuild; we VAPORIZED it off the planet.

Okay, now where is the permissibility for a weapon that “VAPORIZES” the enemy in Catholic teaching?

Nowhere. You may think of every man, woman, and child of an opposing society as an enemy. That puts you firmly outside the Catholic doctrine of just warfare.

All of this talk is presuming that winning the war is the only goal. That is not Catholic teaching; “follow these rules, or else do whatever you want to win the war” is not a Catholic prinicple.