Don’t you see what Moose is saying? Any Americans who suffer from nuclear winter, radiation, mutations etc. are the Emperor’s liability! They can sue him and collect a king’s ransom.
Yes, I agree with you in the case of American lives. But what I was refering to were the Japanese innocents preceding the war.
A: “In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”[1]
A says that force may only be used against those that initiate its use.
Regarding rights, there are two types: Nation’s rights and individual rights. When a nation violates the rights of another by initiating force, it loses its rights and invites retribution. Unfortunately, any innocent civilians (and that means genuinely innocent, those who don’t aid their government’s war machine) die as a result of their government’s actions. Their government is their representitive, whether they chose it or not.
Don’t you see? Any Japanese citizens with flattened houses, severe burns, radiation poisoning, dead relatives or mutant children could just present the Emperor with a bill for damages. The Emperor could then pay them back by charging a fee on all contracts that are enforceable by the government. It’s a win-win situation.
This is overused sarcasm. It didn’t have a point to begin with, but now it’s just getting annoying.
Read Moose’s statement again. The blood of the innocent was on the Emperor’s hands, meaning that it was the Japanese government that was initiating force on the 6th and 9th of August. To suggest that America was morally responsible for those deaths, when she was engaging in self-defense (and her only alternative was to sacrifice thousands of her own troops), is a terrible example of blame-the-victim.
I read it just fine the first time, what was conspicuously absent was an Objectivist justification for that statement. The statement is hardly axiomatic and must be reduced in order to be acceptable.
I find it hard to believe that the Objectivist perspective is that as soon as a war is begun by one nation, that the victim nation can respond with any force it chooses (at its whim) directed at any part of the initiating nation. So what’s the rationale?
The numbers game, as some have claimed seems to be a cop-out. Killing one man instead of ten may be more practical, but if the killing is immoral, then it’s immoral irrespective of numbers.
Here comes another quote from The Roots of War, you are free again to substancelessly dismiss it as out of context, but preferrably you will look up the quote - get the context - and show me why it does not apply to this context.
“And there is something obsene in the attitude of those who regard horror as a matter of numbers, who are willing to send a small group of youths to die for the tribe, but scream against the danger to the tribe itself - and more: who are willing to condone the slaughter of defenseless victims, but march in protest against wars between the well-armed.”
Now, I’m not suggesting that you marched, but certainly you seem to be saying that you condone the slaughter of defenseless victims in order to prevent the death of willing (well-armed) soldiers. Morality is not a numbers game.
(Edited to correct quotes. Smathy, you can ‘preview’ to see what the post is going to look like – before posting. Regards, SoftwareNerd)
I find it hard to believe that the Objectivist perspective is that as soon as a war is begun by one nation, that the victim nation can respond with any force it chooses (at its whim) directed at any part of the initiating nation. So what’s the rationale?
I want a reference for that statement. Who actually advocates that we should be able to choose at our whim what force to direct at the aggressor?
The numbers game, as some have claimed seems to be a cop-out. Killing one man instead of ten may be more practical, but if the killing is immoral, then it’s immoral irrespective of numbers.
There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. A victim nation has both the moral right and the practical necessity to direct whatever force it needs to end the threat while taking minimal losses.
Now, I’m not suggesting that you marched, but certainly you seem to be saying that you condone the slaughter of defenseless victims in order to prevent the death of willing (well-armed) soldiers. Morality is not a numbers game.
This is about as repulsive as I can stand for one night. Not only are you saying that I, not the enemy who started the war, condone any resulting deaths, but you also imply that our troops should be sent to die instead because they are “willing” soldiers. As long as you believe the former (that America is morally responsible for the innocent deaths incurred in her self-defense), you will always believe the latter (that her troops should be lowered to the level of sacrificial animals to avoid of such deaths).
Why do you say that there is no rational understanding of such situations? The situations exist, and we agree that ethical evaluations apply, so I would think that these are rational ethical evaluations.
That wasn’t what I said (some crucial words were left out. Let me restates, so that you can see what I means. The proper standard for evaluating an action undertaken under duress is that it impossible to rationally comprehend the action as supporting life. Some such actions can easily be cmprehended in those terms – the bombing of Hiroshima, for example. The H-bombing of a bank-robber could not be comprehended in such terms: it can only be understood as the perverted urge to kill, and use an incident of agression as carte blanche to do anything.
But if there were no such means, then it would still be wrong to drop the bomb instead of letting the robber escape.
I don’t see that; at any rate, since there are less drastic means to stop the robber, the question is moot.
Even less unrealistic: Suppose the only way to stop a robber (even someone who just murdered) were to take shots into a crowd that have a good chance of striking bystanders. It would be unethical to take the shots.
Why would it be unethical? I don’t understand that claim.
I want a reference for that statement. Who actually advocates that we should be able to choose at our whim what force to direct at the aggressor?
“Whim” may have been the wrong word, I’m waiting to be shown.
A decision was made by America to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a claim was and is being made that it was a necessary component of America’s self-defense (the only way that the action can be claimed to be moral), and yet no rational link between the two has been demonstrated, and that remains my challenge. You stated that it was a moral action, so show it to be moral.
The only statements being made are that (1) Japan started the war, so the deaths are on the Emperor’s head and (2) that it saved lives because many more would have died than did. Neither are arguments enough required to establish morality in themselves.
For (1): Without any additional reasoning, that implies that any action of an attacked nation upon the attacker is justified by the fact that the attacker initiated the war. Any action whatsoever, someone punches me, so I bomb his house and claim the lives are his own responsibility.
If that’s not the case, then justify the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Show how it was an essential component of America’s self-defense.
For (2): The claim that fewer lives were lost in the bombing than would have been is invalid (even if we assume the predictive abilities of those involved to be accurate) as a moral defense because it fails to comment on what other options were available.
Just because more lives will be saved if I blow up a train hurtling toward a crowd, that doesn’t mean that its a moral action if I also have the option of signalling the train to stop.
For (1): Without any additional reasoning, that implies that any action of an attacked nation upon the attacker is justified by the fact that the attacker initiated the war. Any action whatsoever, someone punches me, so I bomb his house and claim the lives are his own responsibility.
This is the heart of your “whim” accusation. The implication you draw completely strips away any concern for the end: America’s self-defense. That is the goal and the standard of value for any action we may take against aggressor nations; nothing else is justified.
For (2): The claim that fewer lives were lost in the bombing than would have been is invalid (even if we assume the predictive abilities of those involved to be accurate) as a moral defense because it fails to comment on what other options were available.
And you, too, fail to comment on what other options were available. Other than a land invasion (which any reasonable person would recognize as more costly in lives), what other options were there?
For (1): Without any additional reasoning, that implies that any action of an attacked nation upon the attacker is justified by the fact that the attacker initiated the war. Any action whatsoever, someone punches me, so I bomb his house and claim the lives are his own responsibility.
This has been addressed, and you’re distorting history. Japan did not punch someone in the nose. They attacked the US and invaded a number of countries, and killed millions. They persisted in their aggression – they continued to violate rights. The justification lies in the need to stop their aggression.
If that’s not the case, then justify the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Show how it was an essential component of America’s self-defense.
The alternative was more American deaths. You’re ignoring the fact that they continued to push their war of aggression even after we had pushed them back in the Pacific, at great loss of life to ourselves.
For (2): The claim that fewer lives were lost in the bombing than would have been is invalid (even if we assume the predictive abilities of those involved to be accurate) as a moral defense because it fails to comment on what other options were available.
But I just commented on those options (and I am not the first to do so). The comparative number of lives is irrelevant: what matters is that they were trying to kill us, and we have the right to kill them to put an end to this aggression.
Just because more lives will be saved if I blow up a train hurtling toward a crowd, that doesn’t mean that its a moral action if I also have the option of signalling the train to stop.
They were “signalled to stop”, and they did not. They continued to kill innocents, which is why we had to use force in the first place. Are you seriously claiming that they were somehow confused and didn’t realize that they were engaged in a war of aggression, and that we just had to say “Excuse me, you are acting aggressively. Now please stop that!”.
Don’t you see? Any Japanese citizens with flattened houses, severe burns, radiation poisoning, dead relatives or mutant children could just present the Emperor with a bill for damages. The Emperor could then pay them back by charging a fee on all contracts that are enforceable by the government. It’s a win-win situation.
How can money fix a third eye, or brain damage, or any other irreperable damage? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t understand. Could you explain the idea of “the Emperor should be protecting its citizens”? I don’t quite understand your position.
…
If that’s not the case, then justify the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Show how it was an essential component of America’s self-defense.
It was an essential component of America’s self-defense because:
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, implying that they intended to “beat us into submission.”
Japan refused America’s terms of surrender, meaning that they would continue to kill Americans by maintaining a state of war.
More American lives would be lost by a land invasion, not to mention more Japanese lives as well.
Therefore, America needed to end the war for her self-defense (nobody is disputing this, I hope) and the best way to do this with minimum loss of life was the Atomic bombings.
For (2): The claim that fewer lives were lost in the bombing than would have been is invalid (even if we assume the predictive abilities of those involved to be accurate) as a moral defense because it fails to comment on what other options were available.
Just because more lives will be saved if I blow up a train hurtling toward a crowd, that doesn’t mean that its a moral action if I also have the option of signalling the train to stop.
What other options were available? I’m going to take the word of trained military professionals over yours I’m afraid. The plan, up until the point of the Atomic bombing, was to invade Japan using Okinawa as a launchpad. That is why that battle was so important to the military.
Your analogy doesn’t mean anything. For one thing, the train isn’t endangering you, so it’s not self-defense. Second of all, Japan had no *off-switch.* There was no easy fix. Japan made it clear that we would have to kill every last one of them if we tried to invade Japan. There was not going to be a quick way to end the war, until the Atomic Bomb.
Basically, provide some evidence that there were other *options* available and very good evidence that they were better options, or cut it out, please.
I don’t know what happened, but it seems that I have tripped and stumbled my way to nowhere in this thread. Perhaps I should have begun with a statement to this affect because there seems to have been some hefty assumptions made about my position and knowledge of the related history.
I have never said that the bombings were immoral, nor do I think that they are. I have little knowledge of the history of the situation so would not be able to draw such a conclusion either way. Prior to coming into contact with Objectivism I had an irrational belief that the bombings were immoral. Since discovering Objectivism I have not revisited that belief saw Oakes’s comment as a chance to get some help to begin that process.
Thankfully today I had a great conversation with several people in #Objectivist and have some excellent starting points for understanding the morality of war from an Objectivist perspective. So thank you to all those who responded, I shall not be posting to this thread any more.
How can money fix a third eye, or brain damage, or any other irreperable damage? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t understand. Could you explain the idea of “the Emperor should be protecting its citizens”? I don’t quite understand your position.
Tom Robinson is not an Objectivist; he is a Libertarian who has apparently decided to deliberately distort and misrepresent the Objectivist position. His posts should have been deleted sooner.
Tom Robinson is not an Objectivist; he is a Libertarian who has apparently decided to deliberately distort and misrepresent the Objectivist position. His posts should have been deleted sooner.
Oh. I had no idea. Well, then I suppose that I should readdress my question to everyone. I agree that the immediate loss of lives in Japan due to the atomic bombs iwas not America’s fault-it is unfortunate that those who didn’t support the Emperor (innocents) were killed, but it is the consequence of war. My concern with using nuclear weapons is with the long term effects of nuclear radiation, as I said “the effect to innocents long after the war is complete”. Such effects include radiation which results in life long and irreperable damage, not to mention nuclear winter and mutations. Should nuclear weapon deterence be supported for this reason, or should the “clean up” and after war reconstruction be up to the country in question’s government?
DavidOdden:
“The proper standard for evaluating an action undertaken under duress is that it [is] impossible to rationally comprehend the action as supporting life.”
I don’t understand what that asserts.
Which, if any, of these are you saying (and should anything be added)?:
The proper standard for evaluating an action undertaken under duress is that an action undertaken under duress should be a best attempt, given the circumstances of duress, to support life.
Duress is a condition under which no action is optimal for supporting life as such optimal condition is supported by the absence of duress.
Imposition of duress is irrational since it prevents optimal action toward supporting life.
"I don’t see that […]‘’
You said that in response to my assertion that it would be wrong to drop an atomic bomb to stop a robber even if it were the only means to stop him.
I surely don’t want to put words in your mouth. But you don’t see that it would be wrong to drop an atomic bomb to stop a robber even if it were the only way to stop him?
“Why would it be unethical? I don’t understand that claim.”
You said that in response to my assertion that it woud be wrong to fire shots at an escaping robber (even murderer) if there were a good chance the shots would strike bystanders.
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?
Why is it that people persist in trying to discount Objectivist foreign policy by bringing up analogies dealing in domestic situations? Why would one presume that a government, charged with protecting its own citizens, would apply the same principles in war as in crime-fighting? Of course the government cannot blow up a city block in order to kill a serial rapist on the run. That would be violating its established duty: to protect its citizens’ rights.
Just for the record, I’m not necessarily proposing an argument by analogy with an escaping criminal.
Why is it that people persist in trying to discount Objectivist foreign policy by bringing up analogies dealing in domestic situations? Why would one presume that a government, charged with protecting its own citizens, would apply the same principles in war as in crime-fighting? Of course the government cannot blow up a city block in order to kill a serial rapist on the run. That would be violating its established duty: to protect its citizens’ rights.
Can you provide an argument that the rights of non-Americans are inferior to the rights of Americans? If, as Rand argued, rights are derived from the nature of man qua man, why should one nationality of man deserve a higher degree of rights protection than another?
Can you provide an argument that the rights of non-Americans are inferior to the rights of Americans? If, as Rand argued, rights are derived from the nature of man qua man, why should one nationality of man deserve a higher degree of rights protection than another?
If I hire a security guard, he is charged with protecting MY rights. He does not stalk the night streets wearing a cape and fighting crime. It is the same with governments. A proper government is established with the purpose of protecting the rights OF ITS CITIZENS. If a dictator uses force to make my government choose between saving the lives of its own citizens or saving the lives of foreign citizens, it should properly save the lives of its own. The responsibility for the loss of the lives of the foreign citizens lies with those who INITIATED force, in any case, and NOT with my government.
The proper standard for evaluating an action undertaken under duress is that an action undertaken under duress should be a best attempt, given the circumstances of duress, to support life.
No. BTW this should be, in the context, “evaluate as immoral”. Since we’re talking about moral evaluation (not moral conduct), the questions are all epistemological. The question that I must ask, in all contexts, is “Is that person acting according to what he knows is right, thus acting to support his life and values?”. The evidence needed to support the negative conclusion changes radically, when your range of options has been reduced by coersion.
But you don’t see that it would be wrong to drop an atomic bomb to stop a robber even if it were the only way to stop him?
Since it can’t be the case that dropping an atomic bomb on him is the only way to stop the robber, then the question doesn’t arise (hence I can’t see it). It is wrong to A-bomb bank robbers because it unnecessarily destroys value. Please remember that moral evaluation is about how to chose between actions in reality, so situations which cannot be real are irrelevant. If it were legitimate to freely invoke counterfactual and impossible situations, then morality would be meaningless because you could always thwart the restrictions imposed by a moral code by saying “Now suppose you were immortal and always guaranteed of success. Then would it be moral to…”
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?
First, let’s change the escapee from a bank-robber to a mass murderer, just to be sure that the argument isn’t grounded on bad assumptions about banks (i.e. the false dichotomy “no amount of money is worth a life”). Second, we need two different people firing the gun, because it depends on the shooter. I would say it is not morally permissible for me to do so, because I am reasonably certain (empirically) that I am not a good shot, and that there is little change that I would hit the killer. So it would be pointless for me to shoot at him, and the chances of hitting an innocent bystander are vastly higher than the chances of me hitting the killer. If you replace me with, say, Vern (who I presume can hit the narrow side of a barn, inter alia) then it is permissible. I am not certain that he would make the shot; I am virtually certain that I would not.