So, I was having a debate about WW2 with some of my nerdy friends, and the topic of the nuclear bomb being dropped on Japan came up. I just want to know, do you think the results justify the means and why? This isn't necessarily about the atomic bomb, just in general, do the results justify the means? I say it depends on the results and the means. If the results are equal to the means, then it can be ok. I feel that for the nuclear bomb example, it isn't ok.
Not for the bomb, no. Japan was going to surrender, anyways. They had heard the terms of surrender over the radio and were waiting until the US themselves formally gave them the terms. But the US Government heard their response and took it to mean they weren't going to accept the surrender terms at all. :dry: They were so gung-ho to give that stupid bomb a try...
Wow, I didn't know that. That is terrible! I can see why we don't learn that in schools though. "History is written by the victors"-Winston Churchill
No, but sometimes you have to push your morality aside to get the results you want. Still, you might have to face consequences for those immoral means of getting what you want, regardless of if the result of what happened is for the better or not.
It's impossible to apply that as a general rule, because everything is relative. There are loads of mitigating factors in any given circumstance, including what the "means" include, and how important it is to find the results. Well, I say "impossible" but everyone has different morals and opinions. In general, though, I'd say if the "ends" were really important, then the "means" are usually justifiable. Not in the case of the atomic bomb, though. That was just unnecessary, all factors considered.
Oh, a loaded question. Niccolò Machiavelli would have said yes. In reality, usually not, in my opinion. In the case of the bomb... it's a tough issue. Without them, the US would probably have had to invade the Japanese home islands, which would likely have resulted in the bloodiest battle in history, with millions dead. HOWEVER... In my humble opinion, the bomb was dropped on the Japanese in order to give it a field trial... over human beings whose lives were seen as less valuable. Back then, the Japanese were seen as subhuman by the American public, an idea which had been encouraged by racially charged propaganda. (The Japanese were often portrayed as rats in US government ads.) The Truman government probably wouldn't have used it against the Germans, even if they hadn't surrendered a few months earlier.
A fair question. Now, I'm in most cases not one for absolute ethics. In this case I will say that in general, no, the end does not justify the means (nor does intention). However, sometimes even the good person has to do bad things, such as in really hard times. For example, to give another horror story. In Mao's China, when the centrally planned economy failed in places and there were severe shortages and famine, it happened that parents couldn't keep their newborn children alive. The mothers didn't have enough access to food to produce enough milk etc. They didn't want the children to starve to death, which surely would have happened. So they had to kill the children. But the primary objective of everyone in the communities was to survive, and there was a shortage of food... They couldn't eat their own children, however. So families traded their infants, cooked them, and ate them. The end was to survive (which many didn't manage anyway). The means was by eating children. Is this justified? I do not wish to judge the people themselves. I don't know what true hunger is like. But I do not think this was a justified action.
The second bomb on Nagasaki had no justification. We didn't even wait for them to respond. It's a good thing we only had two bombs because they probably would have dropped everything we had.
