Morality of using a Nuclear Weapon

[Eric Mathis]

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?

See Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (New York: Vintage, 1977), p. 236: The Potsdam proclamation, which set the Allies’ terms of unconditional surrender, “offered the military die-hards in the Japanese government more ammunition to continue the war than it offered their opponents to end it."

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

Glad we agree.

[Oakes]

See Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (New York: Vintage, 1977), p. 236: The Potsdam proclamation, which set the Allies’ terms of unconditional surrender, “offered the military die-hards in the Japanese government more ammunition to continue the war than it offered their opponents to end it."

Did that book state exactly what in the Potsdam Proclamation gave them "more ammunition to continue the war"?

[Eric Mathis]

Did that book state exactly what in the Potsdam Proclamation gave them "more ammunition to continue the war"?

Yes, as stated above: ". . . which set the Allies’ terms of unconditional surrender. . ."

[Oakes]

Yes, as stated above: ". . . which set the Allies’ terms of unconditional surrender. . ."

You're still not being completely clear. If our enemy nation stated that they would end the war if their emperor would be exempted from justice, naturally I would refuse, for the same reason I would refuse if Osama Bin Laden offered to end all terrorist attacks if we would require that Islam be taught in all public schools. One does not compromise on principles.

[Eric Mathis]

You're still not being completely clear. If our enemy nation stated that they would end the war if their emperor would be exempted from justice, naturally I would refuse, for the same reason I would refuse if Osama Bin Laden offered to end all terrorist attacks if we would require that Islam be taught in all public schools. One does not compromise on principles.

Then obviously you do not approve of U.S. actions with regard to Japan. The emperor was not tried or punished at the end of the war.

[Oakes]

Then obviously you do not approve of U.S. actions with regard to Japan.  The emperor was not tried or punished at the end of the war.

You haven't supplied any quote suggesting that it was specifically the part of the proclamation that caused them to continue their war.

[Eric Mathis]

You haven't supplied any quote suggesting that it was specifically the part of the proclamation that caused them to continue their war.

I provided you with a reference to a historian who argues (convincingly, in my opinion) that U.S. demands for unconditional surrender strengthened the hand of the hard-line faction in the Japanese government and thus prolonged the war. See the book itself for the complete case. You are, of course, free to present information to the effect that the Japanese were fighting for some other reason.

[Oakes]

I provided you with a reference to a historian who argues (convincingly, in my opinion) that U.S. demands for unconditional surrender strengthened the hand of the hard-line faction in the Japanese government and thus prolonged the war.  See the book itself for the complete case.

I understand that, but demanding unconditional surrender is not in itself a bad thing. I would consider it a moral travesty to grant the demands of an aggressor in order to buy peace; there is no better single definition of appeasement.

That book looks interesting, though. I might check it out.

[Eric Mathis]

I understand that, but demanding unconditional surrender is not in itself a bad thing. I would consider it a moral travesty to grant the demands of an aggressor in order to buy peace; there is no better single definition of appeasement.

Let us agree that unconditional surrender is not in itself a bad thing. And perhaps we might further agree that negotiated surrender is not in itself a bad thing. In the case of the war in the Pacific, Truman’s insistence on unconditional surrender did prolong the war (costing thousands of American lives) and left a political vacuum in mainland Asia which Mao’s forces quickly filled. You suggest that dropping the A-bomb saved lives. I suggest that holding out for unconditional surrender ultimately cost millions of lives.

That book looks interesting, though. I might check it out.

Thank you.

[Oakes]

Let us agree that unconditional surrender is not in itself a bad thing.  And perhaps we might further agree that negotiated surrender is not in itself a bad thing.  In the case of the war in the Pacific, Truman’s insistence on unconditional surrender did prolong the war (costing thousands of American lives) and left a political vacuum in mainland Asia which Mao’s forces quickly filled.  You suggest that dropping the A-bomb saved lives.  I suggest that holding out for unconditional surrender ultimately cost millions of lives.

Taking my previous example, if Bin Laden offered to end all terrorist attacks provided we impose Islam in all public schools, and we refused, it would be obscene to say that we prolonged the war (although technically true, at least for the short-term).

[Eric Mathis]

Taking my previous example, if Bin Laden offered to end all terrorist attacks provided we impose Islam in all public schools, and we refused, it would be obscene to say that we prolonged the war (although technically true, at least for the short-term).

Yes, no religion may be imposed on anyone under any circumstances. Of course, public (government) schools should not even exist in the first place. Therefore the correct Objectivist position on a Bin Laden demand to impose Islam in all public schools, is just to abolish public schools. This conflict reminds me of Frank Chodorov's response to Joe McCarthy's demand for getting communists out of government: just abolish their jobs.

[Oakes]

Therefore the correct Objectivist position on a Bin Laden demand to impose Islam in all public schools, is just to abolish public schools.  This conflict reminds me of Frank Chodorov's response to Joe McCarthy's demand for getting communists out of government:  just abolish their jobs.

First thing we agreed on all day

[LauricAcid]

"Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use." [emphases original] [Rand]

"Remember that private citizens - whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers - have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government." [Rand]

If there is an exception for Japanese civilians, then it must be mentioned elsewhere.

One is not obligated to adhere to Rand's positions, but it would be instructive to know which is the case:

1) Rand was inconsistent, and held the above views but also that the atomic bombings were moral.

or

2) Rand was inconsistent, and held that the atomic bombings were not moral.

or

3) Rand held that the atomic bombings were not moral, but held that view inconsistently with Objectivism.

or

4) Rand held that the atomic bombings were not moral, and those who hold that the atomic bombings were moral do so inconsistently with Objectivism.

or

5) The above views are consistent with holding that the atomic bombings were moral. (That would need some pretty fancy footwork to explain.)

[LauricAcid]

"Why do the negative obligations trump the positive ones?" [Oakes]

I haven't asserted that they do.

Do the positive obligations trump the negative obligations? Absolutely?

"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." [Oakes]

Are 'deserving blame' and 'moral impermissibility' synonymous? This particular part of your argument has little more differentiation than a single fault automobile accident policy.

"[...] a security guard, who has taken pay to protect, has a positive obligation too." [LauricAcid]

"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." [emphasis original] [Oakes]

The point eluded you. To fulfill a contract with its citizens, do governments have the right to violate the rights of citizens of other governments? A bodyguard has a positive obligation to protect his client and a negative obligation not to harm others unless they attack his client. A government has a positive obligation to protect its citizens and a negative obligation not to harm others unless they attack its citizens. The civilians targeted for the atomic bombs were not attacking the citizens of the government that dropped the bombs.

A misunderstanding I posted of one of Oake's positions is corrected by Oakes:

"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." [emphasis original] [Oakes]

Yes, I mistakenly took your position as pertaining to just threats of death as opposed to the imposition of a sheer impossibility of survival. One problem with your formulation (though not necessarily persuasive in the subject of this thread, but still important enough to point out) is that usually we can only infer that survival will be highly, even if virtually, unlikely, so that the difference between recognizing a threat to survival and judging that survival is impossible are not always clearly distinct. For example: A man holds a gun to your head and tells you to push a third party out the window of a twenty story building. Is it your contention is that morality does not apply since there is no survival for you if don't comply? But, unknown to you, the gun is not loaded; the man is bluffing. What you judged as an impossibility of survival without pushing the third party out the window was not really an impossibility.

"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?" [Oakes]

I'd think you'd be longingly looking at the piece of food, not the other person, unless you had in mind not nutrition but the fulfillment of a quite different basic need (Sorry, it was too easy not to resist.)

While I'm not convinced that morality is made absolutely nugatory in such situations, your point is an excellent one, and worthy of some thought. However, the atomic bombings are not of such stark existential form as your example, especially since there still are conflicts of positive and negative duties and since the conflict of survival is not one man per one man. Even on the level of one human being, it is hard to see that an eight year old Japanese schoolgirl (really, many schoolyards full of Japanese pre-teens) should be extinguished in an inferno on the analysis that U.S. citizens could not survive otherwise.

(NOTE TO DAVIDODDEN: Oakes has presented a hypothetical that I could, were I to insist, claim to be impossible for me to imagine. But I don't quibble with hypotheticals in that way.)

"The situation is different when a nation must choose between killing enemy civilians or sending its own troops to die." [Oakes]

That leaves a position of absolute duty to positive obligation with absolutely no duty to negative obligation. If one single U.S. (Allied?) soldier would be saved by eradicating the entire islands of Japan, then the entire islands of Japan would have to be eradicated. If that is not a consequence of your premises, then why not?

The civilians were not killed in the course of military actions. The civilians were killed to terrorize the foreign government into surrender. The method was not even to use atomic bombs to take out the enemy, but rather to take out civilians in a demonstration of unprecedented terror (with a long and tortuous aftermath). But since, in your view, morality is nugatory in this situation, such methods of terroristic destruction and execution of entire cities (an entire nation, if necessary?) are not morally precluded.

Perhaps this might have resonance: In this context, what's essential about the victims of the atomic bombings is that they were civilians, not that they happened to be living on an island ruled by a dicatorship with which the U.S. was at war.

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[LauricAcid]

"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 betwe[e]n your sense of principle and some other sense that settles at around 10,000? (By the way, I'm not objecting to arbitrariness.)" [LauricAcid]

"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 arbitrarily 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")." [DavidOdden]

What surreality? What a red herring! There's no surreality. The very argument for dropping the bombs is based on projections of Allied lives that would be lost otherwise. That is the gravamen of the pro atomic bombings position. Now, you're turning around and calling it "surreal" to talk about the gravamen of your own position!

And it's a variation of that red herring to put off the question by appeal to non-omniscience. Lack of omniscience has nothing to do with it. On one hand, you said that saving a single U.S. life would justify the bombings. On the other hand, you said that you had a sense of about 10,000 men to justify the bombings. But I don't fault any arbitrariness. Just as I posted, the arbitrariness of the number is just fine with me. What I am curious about, though, is why you have a schism between what you called your 'principled answer' and some other sense you have. Remember, your principled answer has nothing to do with lack of facts in the issue. While your other consideration may depend on additional facts, you have all the facts you need for your principled answer. So, if your principled answer isn't definitive, then why not? Is there a difference between what you believe is moral in principle and what is moral in practice? If there is not, then since your principled answer is that one U.S. life is sufficient, then that's the end of the answer, right?

"Pure imagination is not a source of fact. This is why I reject unreal scenarios." [DavidOdden]

1. Do you believe it is meaningful to talk about the morality of characters in a novel?

2. Fiction: A federal agent plans to betray the U.S. by exploding a bomb that he can launch from his briefcase. But then he decides that his mission is wrong. As he's walking down the street he sees a robber fleeing. The robber gets about a block away, perfect range to launch the bomb from the briefcase. And there are no police on the scene to stop the robber.

Outlandish, yes. But not so outlandish that one can't easily see that morality dictates that the bomb not be used. But what's the point? To show that positive obligations don't absolutely trump negative ones.

Fiction: A group of conspirators, from many walks of life, achieve an elaborate scheme to take control of the most crucial infrastructure of the United States, including the power sources across the continent. And upon achieving this takeover, the leader of the plot gets on the radio to broadcast about one hundred pages worth of a philosophical treatise.

Does the outlandishness of the scenario preclude talking about the morality of fictional characters?

3. Unless I'm mistaken, the people who control the nuclear weaponry of the United States have spent considerable resources to conjure scenarios and calculate things like how many losses would be acceptable in different scenarios - how many lives would be acceptable to sacrifice in exchanges of nuclear missiles, etc.

4. The argument for dropping the bombs is itself based on hypotheses.

5. "[...] a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare." [Rand]

That is an unreal scenario, but that doesn't stop Rand from saying what would happen in it.

Your qualms about hypothetical reasoning are irrational.

"What are the marksman's chances of success? The bystanders are not the primary issue, the killer is the issue." [DavidOdden]

I hoped to focus, at least to start, on the robber (we can talk about a murderer in a second phase). Anyway, I allowed that the shooter's chances of taking down the robber are real good, pretty much certain, if you like. But only along with a good chance of some bystanders getting hit by one of the bullets too. But whatever the chances of hitting the robber, it would be wrong to fire. The bystanders are the primary issue, not the robber (not even the escaping murderer). The negative duty of the police not to risk killing bystanders trumps the positive duty of the police to apprehend the robber (even the murderer).

"But remember that we are not dealing with a robber: this [WWII Japan] 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." [DavdOdden]

What answer? That I don't think you should risk killing bystanders to catch a robber makes me a pacifist? And I already agreed that it is unreasonable to demand that a war be fought in such a way as to ensure that no civilians are ever harmed. Your thinking that I must be a pacifist is irrational.

As to the comparison between a robber and WWII Japan, indeed, the latter is unimaginably more evil. And, indeed, combating that evil may justify killing some civilians. And, so far, I have not even argued that the atomic bombings were not justified. But my arguments do show that positive duty does not absolutely trump negative duty. My point in this connection is that the position that positive duty absolutely trumps negative duty is an incorrect premise upon which to base this moral inquiry.

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[LauricAcid]

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

The bombs were dropped to obliterate the cities to get the government to surrender. Killing the people was an objective not onto itself, but was an objective toward a greater objective. (This excludes the contention of some writers that part of the motivation was to check the U.S.S.R.)

"If our enemy nation stated that they would end the war if their emperor would be exempted from justice, naturally I would refuse, for the same reason I would refuse if Osama Bin Laden offered to end all terrorist attacks if we would require that Islam be taught in all public schools. One does not compromise on principles." [Oakes]

What same reason is that?

One is letting go of prosecuting a foreigner; the other is agreeing to allow conditions to be forced upon citizens.

On the terms of the above quote, the demand that the emperor be tried or any number of civilians be killed is, again, taking a position that positive duty absolutely trumps negative duty. And that would not even be a matter of saving soldiers' lives. Instead, there would be no threat to the U.S., but the lives of any number of civilians would be taken just to exercise the right to bring a single man (with, granted, great moral culpability) to court. If the crimes of the dictatorship were mass murder, then it seems odd that pursuing justice for that would entail willingness to kill masses of innocents just to get the government to allow the trial of one of the leaders of the mass murder. Actually, to subject civilians (bystanders) to mass execution by nuclear destruction of entire cities just to retain a right to prosecute one of their rulers, would be unprecedented terrorism and like no terrorism we've seen since.

"I would consider it a moral travesty to grant the demands of an aggressor in order to buy peace; there is no better single definition of appeasement." [Oakes]

But not a moral travesty to subject thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of children, women, elderly, and even presumably innocent young men to a holocaust that not only killed, maimed, and genetically disfigured them, but left them with years and years of tortured existence just to make sure that justice was done to their ruler?

Your stand for principle is admirable, and your analysis of blame is not without some merit, but one has to wonder about a morality that makes upholding such principles and analyses worth subjecting thousands (unlimited, if necessary?) innocents as an allowable sacrifice.

[Marc K.]

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.

Actually it is you and LauricAcid who have been confusing contexts. Your most egregious errors involve equating crime with war and the individual with the nation.

- Individuals perpetrate crime, nations perpetrate war.

- Government is the representative of its people.

- People choose their government either actively or passively.

- If a government threatens another, it puts all its people at risk.

SO

- It is the responsibility of the citizens of a country to choose their government. When they choose poorly or passively allow their government to become threatening, it is their responsibility to right themselves.

AND

- Every person must suffer the consequences of the actions of the government they allow to exist.

Since attempting to refute Objectivist ethics by taking Ayn Rand out of context is intellectually dishonest at best, please study the following Ayn Rand quote. For further edification read the thread: "In our name" in the Political Philosophy forum where many of your objections are addressed.

Q: Miss Rand, as an advocate of individualism there's one point that I find difficulty in figuring out in my own mind, and perhaps you can clarify and that is the statement that it is the prerogative of a free country to invade and attack what you call a slave state or a slave pen or a non-free country. I find this hard to figure out because in the final analysis it is not a nation attacking a nation it's people attacking people, attacking individuals, and they may not want your attack. Could please explain that?

AR: ...I know the source of this statement. It's the idea that nations do not exist, only individuals and if some poor blob in Soviet Russia didn't want an invasion, or he is not a communist, we mightn't harm him. Who do you think permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships. Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences.

[Oakes]

The point eluded you. To fulfill a contract with its citizens, do governments have the right to violate the rights of citizens of other governments? A bodyguard has a positive obligation to protect his client and a negative obligation not to harm others unless they attack his client.

Again you bring up the bodyguard analogy, and again I state the difference between individuals and governments: On the personal level, there are two innocent people, and only one can survive - both are "right" and thus morality cannot apply. On the governmental level, there are two groups of innocent people (American servicemen and Japanese schoolchildren) receiving the consequences of their governments' (good or bad) actions - one gov't is "right" and the other is "wrong," thus morality applies. If you consider the government just like any other private organization, with no fundamentally different representative role to its people (it just has a "contract" to fulfill like any other company), I suggest that you check your premises because they may be more closely aligned with anarchism.

But, unknown to you, the gun is not loaded; the man is bluffing. What you judged as an impossibility of survival without pushing the third party out the window was not really an impossibility.

Are you demanding of me omniscience? How could I have known that in such a situation? It changes nothing.

That leaves a position of absolute duty to positive obligation with absolutely no duty to negative obligation. If one single U.S. (Allied?) soldier would be saved by eradicating the entire islands of Japan, then the entire islands of Japan would have to be eradicated. If that is not a consequence of your premises, then why not?

If it were my decision, every time an American soldier or civilian is captured and the monstrous terrorists threaten to behead him or her, I would not hesitate to demand that the American be released under pain of a massive, city-wide show of force they can only dream of. How's that for the consequences of my premises?

But not a moral travesty to subject thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of children, women, elderly, and even presumably innocent young men to a holocaust that not only killed, maimed, and genetically disfigured them, but left them with years and years of tortured existence just to make sure that justice was done to their ruler?

I am not about to accept guilt for the consequences of a criminal government evading justice, any more than I would today if Osama Bin Laden offered to end terrorist attacks under the condition that he and his aides are allowed exile in Malibu.

Now that I've answered your questions, I have a few for you: Do you agree that civilian casualties are acceptable if they are collateral damage (i.e., we were trying to get military targets)? For example, if an Iraqi dictator surrounds schoolyards with anti-aircraft weapons, and American warplanes can only destroy them by killing the children as well.

My second question is: Have you ever heard of psychological operations? They're the part of the military that seeks to destroy enemy morale, which is why intentionally targeting civilians falls into this category. The actual target in such cases is a psychological one (the morale of the enemy government), even though superficially civilians are the ones we seem to be targeting. How can you distinguish this from any other kind of collateral damage?

[Eric Mathis]

AR: Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences.

I agree that government depends upon the cooperation or acquiescence of the majority of its citizens to stay in power. I do not agree that those who are the slaves or victims of government can be held responsible for the evils committed by their tormentor. If that were the case, we'd have to applaud the government for sending Martha Stewart to prison. Shouldn’t she have to suffer the consequences of allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission to exist?

Edited May 6, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Marc K.]

I do not agree that those who are the slaves or victims of government can be held responsible for the evils committed by their tormentor.  If that were the case, we'd have to applaud the government for sending Martha Stewart to prison.  Shouldn’t she have to suffer the consequences of allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission to exist?

I note that you continue to conflate the context of a government at war with that of criminal prosecution. I also note that you disagree with Ayn Rand.

Victims are not responsible for the evils perpetrated by their oppressor, but they will suffer the consequences of the actions of the government they allow to exist. Being truly “innocent” won’t matter to the bombs a free nation must drop to avoid suffering similar evils.

Unfortunately no perfect government exists on earth and each of us must suffer the consequences of unobjective laws which entails Martha Stewart going to jail and me paying outrageous taxes. But I don’t applaud the government for such acts, and I give it no sanction. By exercising our rights and explicitly voicing our opposition to such laws the peaceful change of government policy is possible in free nations.

Let me ask, do you accept that government has a proper, moral purpose? If so, how is that morality defined?

[Eric Mathis]

I note that you continue to conflate the context of a government at war with that of criminal prosecution. I also note that you disagree with Ayn Rand.

I do not say that criminal prosecution is the same as war; I say that individual rights must be respected in both criminal prosecution and war. If I am not mistaken, polite disagreement with Ayn Rand is permitted on this forum

Victims are not responsible for the evils perpetrated by their oppressor, but they will suffer the consequences of the actions of the government they allow to exist. Being truly “innocent” won’t matter to the bombs a free nation must drop to avoid suffering similar evils.

Unfortunately no perfect government exists on earth and each of us must suffer the consequences of unobjective laws which entails Martha Stewart going to jail and me paying outrageous taxes. But I don’t applaud the government for such acts, and I give it no sanction. By exercising our rights and explicitly voicing our opposition to such laws the peaceful change of government policy is possible in free nations.

Well, at least we can agree that victims of an evil government are not morally “responsible for that kind of government.”

Let me ask, do you accept that government has a proper, moral purpose? If so, how is that morality defined?

Yes, the purpose of government is, as Rand said, “the protection of individual rights.” (“The Nature of Government”) “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” (“The Objectivist Ethics”)

[LauricAcid]

Mark K.

You as much as accused me of intellectual dishonesty:

[...] taking Ayn Rand out of context is intellectually dishonest at best

The quotes I gave in this thread are from The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z (Ayn Rand Library, Vol 4). The first quote was posted in full as it appears in that work. The second quote was taken from that work also. The second quote does continue in that book, but I did not distort the quote by not including a second paragraph (as I at least recall, it was in a second paragraph) of it. But what you quoted is inconsistent with the quotes in the book just mentioned. So, Rand was improperly quoted in the book, or she was inconsistent. But that's not too bad, at least per Emerson's famous argument.

Since attempting to refute Objectivist ethics [...]

That begs the question that Objectivist ethics entail the morality of the bombings.

Your most egregious errors involve equating crime with war and the individual with the nation.

There are great differences between government and individual, but those are not ones that refute the particular analogies I gave. By the way, what's my least egregious error?

People choose their government either actively or passively.

Did you actively or passively choose Ted Kennedy to be a senator?

Government is the representative of its people.

Arguably, that's true, if the government is a democracy. Even then, are all people under a government (even a democracy, let alone a tyranny) responsible for all actions of the government? And while you object to analogizing governments and individuals, you don't hesitate to arbitrarily declare that certain properties of governments are transferred to individuals

/

Oakes

If you consider the government just like any other private organization, with no fundamentally different representative role to its people (it just has a "contract" to fulfill like any other company), I suggest that you check your premises because they may be more closely aligned with anarchism.

The difference of role is important, but are not properties that negate the analogy.

Are you demanding of me omniscience? How could I have known that in such a situation? It changes nothing.

Of course omniscience is not demanded. The point was that your lack of it entails that you have no certainty that your survival is impossible. I granted that that was a minor point.

How's that for the consequences of my premises?

I don't know. You talked about something I didn't ask about. I asked: If one single U.S. soldier could be saved by eradicating the entire islands of Japan, would you eradicate the entire islands of Japan?

I am not about to accept guilt for the consequences of a criminal government evading justice [...]

Who asked you to accept guilt?

Now that I've answered your questions [...]

You didn't. But that's okay; we're under no obligation.

Do you agree that civilian casualties are acceptable if they are collateral damage (i.e., we were trying to get military targets)? For example, if an Iraqi dictator surrounds schoolyards with anti-aircraft weapons, and American warplanes can only destroy them by killing the children as well.

It's best not to use Iraq as an example, since that presupposes the morality of that war. Instead, without prejudice to the question of the morality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, let's stay with World War II. There are different situations: (1) Civilians are intentionally targeted to terrorize, (2) It is known that civilians are clustered in the area of a military target, (3) The enemy itself intentionally clusters the civilians in the area of a military target, (4) Civilians aren't clustered, but we can guesst there will be civilian deaths. Also, there are factors: (1) How important the target, (2) What threat the target poses to our soldiers and our civilians, (3) How many civilians will be killed. I would weigh all of these considerations, and allow that one might have to kill civilians. But what I don't buy is that it is absolute that any number of civilians can be killed, maimed, and genetically mutilated for any purpose of war whatsoever. And I especially don't buy that there is an absolute that demands that every single civilian can be killed just to save one soldier. Therefore, whether the atomic bombings were justified depends on considerations much deeper and much more complex than a simple analysis that those people were under a government that threatens our soldiers so that we can morally kill any number of those civilians we feel we need to.

You mentioned also, psychops that include killing civilians (which is terrorism). I don't know why you ask me to distinguish this from civilians being killed in the course of concrete military goals, since they are obviously different.

One does not compromise on principles.

No compromise whatsoever of any principles whatsoever? Or sometimes you allow some compromises of principle?

First you say that the bombings are justified to save the lives of U.S. soldiers. Then, you still haven't said whether it would be justified to destroy the entire islands to save a single U.S. soldier. The importance of this question is to know whether your principle is absolute. Then at the point where it was stated by your interlocutor that the bombings could have been avoided if the U.S. agreed not to prosecute the emperor, without prejudice to whether that is true, you asserted that the bombings would still be justified since it is a matter of principle not to let a grand criminal escape justice. So thousands and thousands and thousands of people, with thousands and thousands and thousands of them having virtually nothing to do with the emperor's own guilt, are expendable for the purpose of acting on principle. So is this principle of always acting on principle absolute? Would you eradicate the entire island of Japan to bring justice to the emperor? Would you eradicate the entire island to bring justice to the emperor's advisors? To bring justice to the lowest level member of the war machine? To bring justice to someone who beat up a U.S. prisoner? To bring justice to someone who once slapped a U.S. prisoner? To bring justice to a kid who stole a pack of gum? I'm not arguing slippery slope; I just wonder whether your principle about not compromising principles is absolute.

Edited May 11, 2005 by LauricAcid

[Oakes]

I don't know. You talked about something I didn't ask about. I asked: If one single U.S. soldier could be saved by eradicating the entire islands of Japan, would you eradicate the entire islands of Japan?

I just got finished saying that I would obliterate an entire city if a group of terrorists didn't let a hostage free. It should be clear how that analogy applies to your WWII example.

Who asked you to accept guilt?

Let's see...

So thousands and thousands and thousands of people, with thousands and thousands and thousands of them having virtually nothing to do with the emperor's own guilt, are expendable for the purpose of acting on principle. So is this principle of always acting on principle absolute? Would you eradicate the entire island of Japan to bring justice to the emperor?

Either you're arguing that I'd be morally guilty for those "thousands and thousands and thousands" of deaths or that post was pointless.

I would weigh all of these considerations, and allow that one might have to kill civilians.

So now there are situations where you think it would be moral to kill civilians. The only difference between you and me is that you are willing to weigh the worth of civilian lives with the lives of our troops, and possibly choose to sacrifice a few of the latter if you come out in favor of the former.

You mentioned also, psychops that include killing civilians (which is terrorism). I don't know why you ask me to distinguish this from civilians being killed in the course of concrete military goals, since they are obviously different.

Why isn't the psychology of the enemy a "concrete military goal"? I ask again, how do you distinguish the two?

Would you eradicate the entire island to bring justice to the emperor's advisors? To bring justice to the lowest level member of the war machine? To bring justice to someone who beat up a U.S. prisoner? To bring justice to someone who once slapped a U.S. prisoner? To bring justice to a kid who stole a pack of gum?

So we don't have to grovel in each individual example, I'll make the principle clear for you: If an enemy offered to end the war on the condition that a crime against an American would be forgotten, such an offer would be rejected.

EDIT: I'd like to add one thing to this last one. Not every member of the Wehrmacht was tried for war crimes in WWII, so it is invalid to speak of the "lowest level member of the war machine" or some kid stealing a pack of gum from a soldier. I am speaking of those who would've otherwise been tried for war crimes; i.e., those in high-ranking positions. They are the ones responsible for the war and thus the crime against Americans.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Oakes

[Marc K.]

Well, at least we can agree that victims of an evil government are not morally “responsible for that kind of government.”

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that.

I said: “[v]ictims are not responsible for the evils perpetrated by their oppressor.” But I explicitly stated that: “[e]very person must suffer the consequences of the actions of the government they allow to exist.”

In other words: The citizens of a country are absolutely responsible for the kind of government they allow to exist. The truly innocent are not responsible for the evils of their government but they most certainly are responsible for its existence.

This is a link to, “In our name”, the thread I mentioned before. It contains all of my principled argument on this subject. It’s short, please read it. If you still have questions, ask, or, quote one of the many enumerated principles and tell me why it is wrong. I quote myself from the same thread:

The only way a dictatorship stays in power is by force so the only way to remove it is by force. That force should be applied by the citizens of that country. If they are unable to change their government and it threatens a free nation, then the implied sanction they give it by not fleeing leaves them exposed not just to the depredations of the dictator but to the force free nations must apply in order not to suffer similar depredations.

I do not say that criminal prosecution is the same as war; I say that individual rights must be respected in both criminal prosecution and war.  If I am not mistaken, polite disagreement with Ayn Rand is permitted on this forum

[...]

Yes, the purpose of government is, as Rand said, “the protection of individual rights.” (“The Nature of Government”)  “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” (“The Objectivist Ethics”)

The US government derives its sovereignty from US citizens only and we may take back that sovereignty at any time. The people of other nations maintain the same right. The only moral purpose of the US government is to protect the rights of US citizens (the only people who grant it sovereignty).

As I explain in the aforementioned thread: rights are moral sanctions to positive action. Just as your right to life requires that you take action to live, so your right to liberty requires that you take action in order to be free. These are the right of all people along with their concomitant responsibilities, whether their government recognizes such or not. If it doesn’t they must do something about it. But don’t ask me to sacrifice myself for the freedom they are not willing to actively support or flee to.

[Marc K.]

The quotes I gave in this thread are from The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z (Ayn Rand Library, Vol 4). The first quote was posted in full as it appears in that work. The second quote was taken from that work also. The second quote does continue in that book, but I did not distort the quote by not including a second paragraph (as I at least recall, it was in a second paragraph) of it. [...]

Yes, and somehow you still managed to take the quotes out of context, how can this be? The proper context for nations at war is contained in the Ayn Rand quote I previously provided.

But what you quoted is inconsistent with the quotes in the book just mentioned. So, Rand was improperly quoted in the book, or she was inconsistent.

Hmmm, so these are the only possible explanations for a perceived inconsistency??? The fault couldn’t possibly be yours??? You may continue to question Ayn Rand’s genius but I warn you don’t insult her integrity.

Ayn Rand was always completely consistent, it is one of the hallmarks of her philosophy. I have no problem reconciling the quote I provided with the ones you provided. (And please, when quoting in the future, cite page number and source and if from the Lexicon, the entry.)

This is a link to, “In our name”, the thread I mentioned before. It contains all of my principled argument on this subject. It’s short, please read it. If you still have questions, ask, or, quote one of the many enumerated principles and tell me why it is wrong.

Your most egregious errors involve equating crime with war and the individual with the nation.

Does this mean that your equivocation of crime with war will refute the analogies you gave? Would you please point to these particular analogies by quoting yourself.

Did you actively or passively choose Ted Kennedy to be a senator?

I actively chose whom I wanted to represent me, but I don’t live in MA. However, by exercising my rights, I could actively oppose Ted Kennedy using every kind of speech imaginable.

Government is the representative of its people.

The people are responsible to accept the consequences for the actions of the government they allow to exist.

And while you object to analogizing governments and individuals, you don't hesitate to arbitrarily declare that certain properties of governments are transferred to individuals

Please provide a quote of where I have done this.

My purpose here is to gain knowledge and enlighten in turn. There are times when your purpose seems to be to argue for argument’s sake, never actually taking a position, to wit:

Let's simplify, by starting first with a robber.

Do you think it is morally permissible to fire shots that have a good chance of killing, maiming, paralyzing, or wounding bystanders just to stop an escaping robber?

Just for the record, I'm not necessarily proposing an argument by analogy with an escaping criminal.

You’re not necessarily proposing an argument by analogy with an escaping criminal??? Meaning: you might be, but not necessarily??? -- What, you’re not sure? or you just want to keep us guessing?

You have displayed this behavior before, it is unproductive. I must insist that you take a position (preferably the one you think is true) if you are going to make an argument. Then, by exhausting one false line of reasoning at a time, we may arrive at an understanding.

Also, please learn to use the quote function, it is not too difficult and will make your posts eminently more readable. Barring this, at least provide the post # in your quotes.