Morality of using a Nuclear Weapon

[LauricAcid]

"In the context of Hiroshima, America was not initiating force. The American government had to choose between doing its duty (protecting Americans), and fulfilling the obligation of not harming innocents. Such an unreconcilable dilemma was created by the Japanese government. Thus in that context, they were the initiators, and we were the retaliators." [Oakes]

That glosses right over the question of how much damage to bystanders is morally permissible to counter aggression.

First, the argument is made (by some) that a goverment wages war in defense of its citizens. So the government is a kind of proxy. If there are only individual rights, then the government is a proxy for individuals. If governments have a moral right to act in defense of its citizens as an extension of the rights of its citizens, then the principle of domestic as opposed to international is not an essential difference in that framework.

Question: If someone is shooting at you from inside a crowd of a hundred bystanders but your only weapon left (you're out of bullets) is a hand launched bomb powerful enough that it will kill all of the bystanders, then is it morally permissible to throw the bomb?

Edited May 4, 2005 by LauricAcid

[Oakes]

If governments have a moral right to act in defense of its citizens as an extension of the rights of its citizens, then the principle of domestic as opposed to international is not an essential differentiator in that framework.

What do you mean it isn't essential? In foreign wars, the bystanders are civilians of a negligent government; in domestic situations, the bystanders are your own citizens. That difference has important implications.

Question: If someone is shooting at you from inside a crowd of a hundred bystanders but your only weapon left (you're out of bullets) is a hand launched bomb powerful enough that it will kill all of the bystanders, then is it morally permissible to throw the bomb?

Morality does not apply to this situation, and the fact that you brought up such an awkward hypothetical shows just how much altruism has perverted the field of morality. You are essentially asking, if you were on a deserted island with one other person, and the only food you could find was in his hands, would it be moral to steal it from him and eat it, or should you let yourself starve? Morality can only apply to situations where life as a human being is possible.

[Eric Mathis]

In the context of Hiroshima, America was not initiating force. The American government had to choose between doing its duty (protecting Americans), and fulfilling the obligation of not harming innocents. Such an unreconcilable dilemma was created by the Japanese government. Thus in that context, they were the initiators, and we were the retaliators.

"Retaliate" means to "to return like for like." Thus the killing of children at Hiroshima can be called "retaliation" only if it can be shown that they initiated force.

[LauricAcid]

"What do you mean it isn't essential? In foreign wars, the bystanders are civilians of a negligent government; in domestic situations, the bystanders are your own citizens. That difference has important implications." [Oakes]

What implications negate the rights of citizens of bad governments? Force across borders is a political matter much more than an ethical one. If there are only individual rights, then the analogy is correct in its structure and is not invalidated by the inessential condition that one situation is carried across national borders and by governmental proxies rather than private proxies.

"Morality does not apply to this situation [...]"

I should think that a good moral theory would account for all situations in which rights, force (especially of life and death, especially of the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, especially of those among the hundreds of thousands who cannot reaonably be held accountable for the actions of a totalitarian government). How deep is a moral theory that is mute about rights, force, and life on such a huge scale?

"[...] awkward hypothetical [...]"

There's nothing awkward about the hypothetical I just gave. It's very straightforward and the situtation is of the kind faced often in our violent world.

"[...] shows just how much altruism has perverted the field of morality. [...]"

Non sequitur.

"You are essentially asking, if you were on a deserted island with one other person, and the only food you could find was in his hands, would it be moral to steal it from him and eat it, or should you let yourself starve?"

Not really. But now that you mention it, that's a fair question to ask.

"Morality can only apply to situations where life as a human being is possible."

A moral theory cannot presume that situations are ideal. A moral theory cannot presume that situations are even close to what we wish they were. Of course, in a perfect universe in which force were never used, there would not be difficult moral questions! And of course if the world were a place in which rights were only thwarted to a neglibible degree, then there would be no great moral problems.

A moral theory tells what is morally obligatory, morally prohibited, and morally permissible, right?. But that includes what is morally obligatory, prohibited, and permissible even in situations in which others violate the morality. You're not of the woods morally - no longer subject to moral evaluation - just because someone violated your rights!

Edited May 4, 2005 by LauricAcid

[DavidOdden]

Do you believe we can meaningfully talk about the ethics of fictional characters and fictional situations, such as in novels?

Sure. I think I was prety clear that I reject impossible hypotheticals, not plausible ones, but if that wasn't clear, I repeat. I accept that "field commanders" could be SWAT team leaders -- my head wasn't there at the the time.

What is negligible? How many losses?

I don't know. Since I smell the "arbitrary number" argument, I'll just say that it's some number that needs to be determined by military experts. The principled answer is that saving one American life would be sufficient grounds. In the context of US military history, I had in mind for WWII the range 10,000, but I would be willing to just say "1", if that would help your understanding. Part of the problem is that the bomb wasn't available from the start of the war.

What if Japan had not attacked the U.S. but instead the U.S., in the interest of thwarting further Japanese agression that was likely to endanger the U.S., had first attacked Japanese forces in the Pacific?

The distinction between an actual attack and a credible threat is not worth making, so if Japan had just threatened to attack the US, we would have been justified to retaliate militarily.

So there's no limit to how many civilians you can morally kill?

Sure there is. I've said this many times: the smallest number necessary. If it is necessary to kill 200 civilians to stop their aggression, then that is the number. If it is necessary to kill 200 civilians to stop the aggression, then it is not necessary to kill 2,000 civilians, and that tells you which action you should undertake. If on the other hand it is necessary to kill 100,000 civilians, then that's the number. You didn't name the specific cities that had to be destroyed in your "bomb 10 cities" scenario, so I cannot tell you what the number is. If you give me a list of cities, I will try to find out the number (it would depend on whether I can get population figures for that time).

What doesn't make sense?

The hypothetical. I cannot comprehend the words. Just restate the hypothetical, and forget whatever hidden point you had: I literally cannot make sense of the example.

Anyway we want by gradually decreasing (or increasing) hypothetical damage to ourselves and increasing (decreasing) hypothetical damage to bystanders.

I'm totally puzzled. Are you saying that in the hypothetical, I start out by not hurting myself and that slowly start to beat myself, and at the same time beat a bystander less severely? Why am I beating anyone at all? I just don't get the example.

First, I already answered your objection about metaphysical contrafactuals.

Second, that in our present circumstances a nuke is never needed for a robber doesn't detract from the point of the hypothetical. If you like, take the situation as fictional...but I'm not asking you to take the situation as metaphysically fictional!

Whether or not you ask me to take it as impossible, it is. If you can prove otherwise, go for the gusto. BTW, I assume you have read OPAR, the chapter "Reason". If not, please tell me since that's important background that I've assumed.

Fine. Then the original question is not answered: What if the only way to stop the robber were to fire shots that had a good chance of striking bystanders (you may add to this that firing enough shots will have a very very good chance of stopping the robber)?

Okay, so this is Vern shooting: then it is morally permissible. Though he himself might have an objection to pulling the trigger, which is his right.

Did someone say anything about protection (actually not protection, but restraint from force that includes force against) civilians as an absolute?

Someone did -- the Quakers, in general, to name one; I'm glad to see that you didn't, and that you are willing to allow the lives of innocent bystanders to be destroyed to protect the rights of others. How many innocent bystanders?

[Oakes]

"Retaliate" means to "to return like for like." Thus the killing of children at Hiroshima can be called "retaliation" only if it can be shown that they initiated force.

Again you are looking at it in a vacuum, and ignoring the circumstances. Governments are fundamentally different from individuals in that they have a positive obligation (to protect their citizens). If an enemy government forces the alternative between neglecting its duty and killing enemy civilians, one cannot properly call the latter an initiation of force.

Since this isn’t the first time I’ve stated this, I’ll make this the last time. There are only so many ways you can repeat yourself.

What implications negate the rights of citizens of bad governments? Force across borders is a political matter much more than an ethical one. If there are only individual rights, then the analogy is correct in its structure and is not invalidated by the inessential condition that one situation is carried across national borders and by governmental proxies rather than private proxies.

The analogy is not correct in its structure, because (as I say above) governments have a positive obligation, while private citizens only have negative ones.

I should think that a good moral theory would account for all situations in which rights, force (especially of life and death, especially of the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, especially of those among the hundreds of thousands who cannot reaonably be held accountable for the actions of a totalitarian government). How deep is a moral theory that is mute about rights, force, and life on such a huge scale?

The reason morality cannot account for it is not because of its scale; it is because it is a zero-sum situation between individuals. If in reality the only choices are an individual’s death or the death of another innocent person(s), morality can say nothing.

There is, however, a clear moral answer to whether or not a government can perform such an action in an enemy nation. The moral answer is that it has a positive obligation to protect its citizens.

A moral theory cannot presume that situations are ideal. A moral theory cannot presume that situations are even close to what we wish they were. Of course, in a perfect universe in which force were never used, there would not be difficult moral questions! And of course if the world were a place in which rights were only thwarted to a neglibible degree, then there would be no great moral problems.

You misread me. I said that morality can only apply to situations where life as a human being is possible. When your choices are initiating force or death, life as a human being becomes impossible. I never said morality requires a perfect world, only a world where moral choices are possible.

[LauricAcid]

"[...] I smell the "arbitrary number" argument [...]" [DavidOdden]

I'm not inclined to such an argument. Though, if one does does draw markers (such as that the age of majority is eighteen) then one should at least admit the marker is arbitrary or that even if it is not completely arbitrary then it has at least some arbitrariness to it.

"The principled answer is that saving one American life would be sufficient grounds. In the context of US military history, I had in mind for WWII the range 10,000, but I would be willing to just say "1", if that would help your understanding."

So your principle is that saving one American (what about Allied, by the way?) life justifies killing any number, with no upper limit, of civilians? But you have another sense of about 10,000 lives. Is there a schism betwen your sense of principle and some other sense that settles at around 10,000? (By the way, I'm not objecting to arbitrariness.)

"So there's no limit to how many civilians you can morally kill?" [LauricAcid]

"Sure there is. I've said this many times: the smallest number necessary."

I thought it was clear enough from context that I meant how many you can morally kill if it is required to kill them to save U.S. (Allied?) casualties. Anyway, your answer seems to be that there is no limit to how many Japanese civilians we could morally kill if it were necessary to kill them to save the life of a single U.S. soldier.

"I literally cannot make sense of the example."

My fault for not clarifying when you asked that it's not an example, but rather a general statement that we can make hypotheticals along a range from the most extreme to the most balanced.

"Are you saying that in the hypothetical, I start out by not hurting myself and that slowly start to beat myself, and at the same time beat a bystander less severely? Why am I beating anyone at all? I just don't get the example."

Sorry, 'wants' in my sentence was a typo. I meant that we get a gradual range of hypotheticals by simultaneously, in each individual hypothetical, decreasing the amount of aggression that is against us us and increase the amount of damage to bystanders. In other words: Let each of these undesirables be on an axis (damage to us on the x axis and damage to bystanders on the y axis). Now move both of them in opposite directions on their respective axes. Each intersection is a different hypothetical.

"[...] it is [...]"

Okay, we're not getting anywhere with this difference we have about possibility. But this might help: As I understand your view, before the invention of the atomic bomb, hypotheticals about some bomb imagined of the strenght of an atomic would be meaningless. But I think we can see that is not true. As to the book you mentioned, I've have not read that book, but I have read most of Rand's own major books, but claim no special expertise about them.

"[...] this is Vern shooting: then it is morally permissible [...]"

No, you claimed that his shooting is so good that there is virtually no chance of striking civilians. I'm not setting the degree of marksmanship any more specific than that there's a good chance bystanders would be struck. It's fair if you feel your own answer depends on distinguishing gradations of marksmanship in the range of 'good chance could be struck', but my original assertion was just that it is not morally permissible to fire if there's a good chance bystanders could be struck.

"[...] the Quakers, in general, to name one; I'm glad to see that you didn't, and that you are willing to allow the lives of innocent bystanders to be destroyed to protect the rights of others."

I think one would be pretty unreasonable to expect to fight a war of self-defense in such a way as to ensure that no civilians were harmed. But questions about intentional targetting of civilians and entire cities of them, though, are not settled by mere renunciation of utterly unrealistic pacifism.

"How many innocent bystanders?"

In the case of the robber, just one is enough to make taking the shots morally impermissible.

Edited May 4, 2005 by LauricAcid

[LauricAcid]

"The analogy is not correct in its structure, because (as I say above) governments have a positive obligation, while private citizens only have negative ones." [Oakes]

That's well put. But overlooks that governments also have negative obligations, and that is what's tested in the analogy. Also, a security guard, who has taken pay to protect, has a positive obligation too.

"The moral answer is that [a government has a] positive obligation to protect its citizens."

And, in this frame, a negative obligation not to violate the rights of any citizen of any government.

"I said that morality can only apply to situations where life as a human being is possible. When your choices are initiating force or death, life as a human being becomes impossible. I never said morality requires a perfect world, only a world where moral choices are possible [...]"

RETRACTION: I regret having misstaken your position and for posting as if you had made claims you hadn't. My only explanation for the error is that I have read others - not you I now know - use 'life as human being' and similar phrases to encompass protection of all rights of a person, not just the right not to be murdered.

Returning to the questions here, I still don't think the atomic bombings are covered by the escape clause that morality does not apply where one's life is threatened. First, the Allies still had to quash the enemy, but the U.S. nor the world were as imperiled by Japan as before. Second, it is still a meaningful question whether it is morally permissible to kill others who are morally blameless and non-threatening in order to live in the face of attack. I don't accept that threat to one's life excepts one's actions from the moral domain.

Edited May 4, 2005 by LauricAcid

[softwareNerd]

... the killing of children at Hiroshima can be called "retaliation" only if it can be shown that they initiated force....

Did someone contend that the U.S. dropped the bomb in order to kill the children of Hiroshima? If so, they're mistaken.

[non-contradictor]

Lauric Acid, please use the normal quoting style. Your posts are harder to read when you don't. It is simple to do. You add

to the beginning of your quote and

to the end.

- to mess up the code so the tags show up

I don't really understand the argument against using the bombs. A lot of people died in Hiroshima, true, but more people died on Okinawa--the first and only invasion of a Japanese island-- than at Hiroshima. It is entirely probable that many civilian, not military, lives were saved by dropping the bombs. They decimated the populations of those two cities, but they did not kill 1/3 of the population of Japan. If we had invaded Japan, it would have turned into another drawn out bloody battle just like Okinawa. In the meantime, civilians would be left to try to survive, and many more than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have failed.

[Oakes]

That's well put. But overlooks that governments also have negative obligations, and that is what's tested in the analogy.

Why do the negative obligations trump the positive ones? The central goal of our government is (should be) to protect its citizens. If a foreign government forces their negative obligation to prevent them from doing that, it is that foreign government that should be blamed when civilians start dying.

Also, a security guard, who has taken pay to protect, has a positive obligation too.

What I meant was, the government has a positive obligation to its citizens. Private citizens may enter into obligations via contract, but they do so under the legal oversight of the government. They don't have the liberty to violate each others rights in fulfillment of those contracts.

Returning to the questions here, I still don't think the atomic bombings are covered by the escape clause that morality does not apply where one's life is threatened. <snip> I don't accept that threat to one's life excepts one's actions from the moral domain.

Again you misunderstand me. Morality can apply when an individual's life is threatened; it can't apply when the only way for the individual to end the threat is to kill other innocents. If I am on that island, looking longingly at the other person with the last piece of food in his hand, how is morality supposed to sort out the situation? Is it supposed to instruct me to voluntarily die? Is that proper instruction from a code that seeks to tell me how to live? In such a situation, we are lowered to animals, and thus morality cannot guide us. We are left to fight over the grapefruit to the death.

The situation is different when a nation must choose between killing enemy civilians or sending its own troops to die. In such a case, the proper course of action is for the government to fulfill its central goal: to protect its citizens. Again I will say what I said to Eric: Since this isn’t the first time I’ve stated this, I’ll make this the last time.

[DavidOdden]

So your principle is that saving one American (what about Allied, by the way?) life justifies killing any number, with no upper limit, of civilians? But you have another sense of about 10,000 lives. Is there a schism betwen your sense of principle and some other sense that settles at around 10,000? (By the way, I'm not objecting to arbitrariness.)

The apparent arbitrariness has to do with non-omniscience plus the surreality of the context. It's like asking me to perform a moral evaluation on Columbus: I really do not know what he knew, whether he was the thief and plunderer that he is usually made out to be. He died hundreds of years before I was born. WWII is a little bit less remote, but still I don't have a basis for saying anything more specific that "About that range". I think if you'd be willing to present all the facts at the time, I could give you a fairly good answer. I just can't do that on the fly, because I don't think these should be questions that can be abitrarily answered, with no reference to fact and with exclusive reliance on a prioristic, rationalistic views (such as "Better to kill all of the American soldiers than to risk the life of a single Japanese civilian").

Okay, we're not getting anywhere with this difference we have about possibility. But this might help: As I understand your view, before the invention of the atomic bomb, hypotheticals about some bomb imagined of the strenght of an atomic would be meaningless. But I think we can see that is not true. As to the book you mentioned, I've have not read that book, but I have read most of Rand's own major books, but claim no special expertise about them.

It might help you to know that OPAR was written by Leonard Peikoff. For the purposes of this discussion, that chapter (of Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand) clarifies a number of important empistemological issues, the most relevant one being the concept of "the arbitrary". Evidence has to have some degree of truth, which means grounding in reality. Pure imagination is not a source of fact. This is why I reject unreal scenarios. All I can suggest is that you try to read that chapter, since it's important to understand why arbitrary assertions have no value for reason.

It's not difficult to imagine a world just like this one, where you just add one technological breakthrough that results in a very powerful new weapon. Heck, photon torpedoes would be a good example. That does not describe the world that actualy exists here and now, but it is perferctly sensible in terms of basic concepts that we know to be valid. But what you're asking for, though, is a radically different universe, one where no tools of force (including fists) exist except atomic bombs. I can't imagine such a world. You're basically asking that I deny everything that I know, and then ask what I would do.

No, you claimed that his shooting is so good that there is virtually no chance of striking civilians. I'm not setting the degree of marksmanship any more specific than that there's a good chance bystanders would be struck.

Then you're missing the point. What are the marksman's chances of success? The bystanders are not the primary issue, the killer is the issue. If you know you cannot stop him, you must not shoot. Even if you think it's unlikely that you will stop him and it is likely you will hurt others in the process of trying, you should not shoot. (But this is really not comparable, since Japan was continuing to kill thousands, so we are not talking about bringing a rogue to justice, we are talking about halting an active murderer).

In the case of the robber, just one is enough to make taking the shots morally impermissible.

But remember that we are not dealing with a robber: this is a mass-murderer who we are trying to stop. I thought we agreed that you should not deny people protection of their rights when it is "mere money". Say something concrete to demonstrate that you are not a pacifist: that's the only rational explanation I can think of for your answer.

[Eric Mathis]

Again you are looking at it in a vacuum, and ignoring the circumstances. Governments are fundamentally different from individuals in that they have a positive obligation (to protect their citizens). If an enemy government forces the alternative between neglecting its duty and killing enemy civilians, one cannot properly call the latter an initiation of force.

You are dropping ethical context. Government officials are not exempt from moral law. If the prohibition on the initiation of force applies to private citizens, it applies to those in government as well. If the children of Hiroshima did not themselves initiate force, then any form used against them qualities as initiated force. No one held a gun at Truman’s head and forced him to drop the bomb.

[Oakes]

No one held a gun at Truman’s head and forced him to drop the bomb.

Not literally, but he was forced to choose between that and sending American boys to die. Do you agree with that much?

[Eric Mathis]

Not literally, but he was forced to choose between that and sending American boys to die. Do you agree with that much?

I do not agree that the atomic bombing of two cities was required to end the war in the Pacific. Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur both opposed the use of the bomb.

[LauricAcid]

non-contradictor:

I have concrete reasons - which would be tedious to discuss - for not using the system quote tag.

Quotes in my posts are in quote marks, in separate paragraphs, and with bracketed attribution. The attribution for subsequent quotes remains the same until a new bracketed attribution. Or, if a post or section of a post is explicitly addressed to a poster, then all quotes in that post or section are by that poster. And if there is no attribution, then the quotes are from the previous post.

Edited May 5, 2005 by LauricAcid

[non-contradictor]

Fair enough, I just thought I'd ask.

[LauricAcid]

Thanks, non-contradictor.

By the way, I just edited my post.

Knowing your concern, I've made a mental note to be even more conscientious than I already am that attribution not be ambiguous.

[Oakes]

I do not agree that the atomic bombing of two cities was required to end the war in the Pacific.  Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur both opposed the use of the bomb.

That wasn't my question. I'll ask it again: Do you agree that Truman was forced to choose between killing enemy civilians and sending American boys to die?

Of course it wasn't required to win the war; we could've mounted a land invasion, although surely with more American deaths.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Oakes

[Eric Mathis]

That wasn't my question. I'll ask it again: Do you agree that Truman was forced to choose between killing enemy civilians and sending American boys to die?

No.

Of course it wasn't required to win the war; we could've mounted a land invasion, although surely with more American deaths.

Truman’s own chief of staff, Admiral William D. Leahy, said, "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

[Oakes]

No.

Explain.

Truman’s own chief of staff, Admiral William D. Leahy, said, "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

Give me an alternative where zero Americans die, not a blank quote.

[Eric Mathis]

Explain.

The Japanese would have given up by early 1945 had it not been for Truman's demand for unconditional surrender.

Give me an alternative where zero Americans die, not a blank quote.

You cannot order the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and have zero Americans die. Among the Hiroshima dead were 12 American POWs.

[Oakes]

The Japanese would have given up by early 1945 had it not been for Truman's demand for unconditional surrender.

Why should we not demand unconditional surrender?

You cannot order the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and have zero Americans die.  Among the Hiroshima dead were 12 American POWs.

And how many would've died given the alternative?

Edited May 5, 2005 by Oakes

[Eric Mathis]

Why should we not demand unconditional surrender?

Unconditional surrender meant that the victor could order the trial and execution of the emperor, a figure for whom most Japanese had a deep reverence. It wasn't until after Nagasaki that the U.S. made it clear that the emperor would not be punished.

And how many would've died given the alternative?

In fact, Truman did not exhaust all the ways of ending the war without destroying two cities. One possibility, urged by many in the Manhattan Project, was to detonate an atomic bomb offshore and downwind of any population areas.

[Oakes]

Unconditional surrender meant that the victor could order the trial and execution of the emperor, a figure for whom most Japanese had a deep reverence.  It wasn't until after Nagasaki that the U.S. made it clear that the emperor would not be punished.

Are you suggesting that the Japanese were continuing the war solely out of fear that their emperor would be executed should they fail? Where's your evidence for this?

In fact, Truman did not exhaust all the ways of ending the war without destroying two cities.  One possibility, urged by many in the Manhattan Project, was to detonate an atomic bomb offshore and downwind of any population areas.

I'm sure this would have brought the enemy to their knees.