Moral dilemma: using the A-bomb or not, against Japan during WW2

 

Here is an analysis of the ethical dilemma surrounding the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II. Let's explore the moral and ethical issues involved in this complex historical decision, where the choice was between using the bomb (X) or not using it (Y), with both options having significant moral weight but being contradictory, as the decision-makers could not pursue both simultaneously.

Initial Question

What are the moral/ethical issues in the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan during WWII? Is there a choice between whether the U.S. should have dropped the bomb (X) or refrained from doing so (Y), where both options can be argued as morally right but are contradictory and cannot be pursued at the same time?

Gathering Information About the Alternatives

1. What are the key arguments for using the atomic bomb (X)? For instance, was it seen as a way to end the war quickly and save lives by avoiding a prolonged invasion?
2. What are the key arguments against using the atomic bomb (Y)? Was it considered morally wrong due to the massive civilian casualties and long-term effects of radiation?
3. Who were the primary decision-makers involved in this choice, and what were their perspectives or pressures (e.g., President Truman, military leaders, scientists)?
4. Were there any external factors or constraints, such as political pressures, international relations, or the state of the war, that influenced the decision?

Identifying False Dichotomies, Assumptions, or Fallacies

• Is there a false dichotomy in assuming the only options were to use the bomb or invade Japan? Were there other alternatives, such as a demonstration of the bomb's power or continued conventional bombing, that were overlooked?
• Were there false assumptions, such as the belief that Japan would never surrender without drastic measures, or that using the bomb would guarantee a quick end to the war?
• Are there logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that because the war ended after the bombings, the bombings were the sole cause of the surrender)?

Determining Actors and Moral Ownership

• Whose moral issue is this? Primarily, it is an issue for the U.S. leadership (e.g., President Truman and military advisors) who made the decision. However, it also involves the scientists who developed the bomb, the military who executed the order, and even the broader American public who supported the war effort.
• It also indirectly involves the Japanese government and civilians, as well as Allied nations, whose perspectives and suffering are part of the ethical equation.

Defining X and Y and Ownership

• X: Using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan's surrender. This belongs to the U.S. government and military leadership.
• Y: Not using the atomic bomb, potentially prolonging the war through conventional means or seeking alternative strategies for surrender. This also belongs to the U.S. leadership as the decision-making body.

Testing for Right vs. Wrong Issues

• Violation of Law: At the time, there were no explicit international laws banning the use of atomic weapons, though general principles of warfare (e.g., avoiding unnecessary civilian harm) could be invoked.
• Departure from Truth: Were there distortions in the information presented to decision-makers, such as exaggerated estimates of casualties from a land invasion?
• Deviation from Moral Rectitude: The massive loss of civilian life (estimated at over 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and long-term suffering from radiation raise significant moral concerns about proportionality and humanity.

Applying Ethical Tests

• Stench Test: Does the decision to use the bomb feel inherently wrong due to the scale of destruction and targeting of civilians?
• Front-Page Test: How would the decision look if reported on the front page of newspapers worldwide? Would it be seen as a necessary evil or an unjustifiable act of mass destruction?
• Mom Test: Would you be comfortable explaining to your mother or a loved one why this decision was made, given the loss of innocent lives?

Right vs. Right Dilemma Paradigms

Since this appears to be a right vs. right issue (saving lives by ending the war quickly vs. avoiding catastrophic civilian harm), let’s analyze it through key paradigms:

• Truth vs. Loyalty: Truth about the devastating impact of the bomb vs. loyalty to American and Allied troops whose lives might be saved by avoiding a land invasion.
• Self vs. Community: National self-interest of the U.S. in ending the war vs. the global community’s interest in minimizing human suffering.
• Rational Self-Interest vs. Altruism/Sacrifice: U.S. interest in a quick victory vs. the altruistic sacrifice of prolonging the war to avoid mass civilian casualties.
• Short-Term vs. Long-Term: Short-term gain of ending WWII vs. long-term consequences like the nuclear arms race and ethical precedent for using such weapons.
• Justice vs. Mercy/Forgiveness: Justice in punishing Japan for its role in the war vs. mercy toward Japanese civilians who bore the brunt of the bombings.

Applying Resolution Principles

• Ends-Based Principle/Ends Justify the Means: Dropping the bomb could be justified if the end (ending the war and saving lives overall) outweighed the means (mass destruction).
• Might Makes Right: The U.S. had the power to use the bomb and did so, asserting dominance over Japan, though this principle is ethically questionable.
• Utilitarian Principle: Did the benefit (ending the war, potentially saving millions of lives from a land invasion) outweigh the harm (immediate and long-term suffering in Japan)?
• Ratio of Benefit to Harm/Risk/Cost: Was the benefit of a quicker end to the war worth the harm of civilian deaths, the risk of future nuclear escalation, and the cost to international moral standing?
• Kantian Duty Principle/Categorical Imperative: Would using the bomb be a universal maxim? If every nation used such weapons to end conflicts, would the world be acceptable? Kantian absolutes might reject such indiscriminate killing as inherently wrong.
• Care/Compassion/Empathy Principle: Did the decision show care for Japanese civilians, or was it driven purely by strategic necessity?
• Golden Rule Principle: Would U.S. leaders want such a weapon used against their own civilians under similar circumstances?
• Non-Violation of Natural Rights/Non-Use of Force: Using the bomb violated the natural right to life for many Japanese civilians, though it could be argued as a necessary act of war.
• Fight, Flight, or Freeze Options: The U.S. chose to "fight" by using the bomb rather than "flight" (seeking alternative diplomatic solutions) or "freeze" (delaying the decision).
• Trilemma/Compromise/Middle Ground: Was there a middle ground, such as a demonstration explosion in an unpopulated area to show power without loss of life?
• Aristotelian Golden Mean/Dialectic Synthesis: Could a balance be struck between military necessity and humanitarian concern, perhaps through conditional surrender terms or targeted strikes on military installations only?

Philosophical Perspectives

• Ayn Rand/Objectivism: Rand might argue for rational self-interest, supporting the use of the bomb if it protected American lives and liberty, viewing it as a justified act in a war context. She might also note that in a rational society, time heals past injustices, but immediate survival takes precedence.
• Neo-Tech Principles: Neo-Tech might emphasize fully integrated honesty and rational decision-making, potentially criticizing the use of the bomb if based on incomplete data or emotional fear rather than reason.
• Christianity/New Testament: Christian ethics might lean toward mercy and the sanctity of life, questioning the morality of targeting civilians and advocating for forgiveness over retribution.
• Judaism: Jewish ethics might focus on the principle of "pikuach nefesh" (saving a life), weighing whether using the bomb saved more lives than it cost, though the loss of innocent life would still be a grave concern.
• Dialectical Synthesis: Thesis (use the bomb to end the war) vs. Antithesis (avoid mass civilian harm) could synthesize into a strategy of demonstrating power without direct attack, though historical context limited such options.
• Pragmatism: A pragmatic approach would focus on what worked best to end the war, likely supporting the bomb’s use if it achieved the goal efficiently.
• Buddhism: Buddhist ethics, emphasizing non-harm (ahimsa), would likely oppose the use of the bomb due to the immense suffering caused.
• Postmodernism: This perspective might argue that there is no absolute moral truth, and the decision depends on cultural and historical narratives, questioning whether the U.S. narrative of necessity holds up against Japanese perspectives of victimhood.
• Relativism: Moral relativism would suggest the rightness of the decision depends on the cultural and situational context, with no universal answer.
• Subjectivism/Emotionalism: These might focus on personal or emotional reactions—did leaders feel justified, or were they haunted by guilt?
• Situational Ethics: If the situation (imminent land invasion with high casualties) demanded ending the war, then using the bomb might be ethical; if not, other means should have been pursued.

Gender-Based Ethics

• Men’s Approach (Justice/Rights-Based): Might focus on the strategic necessity and rights of the U.S. to defend itself, viewing the bomb as a rule-based decision within the context of war.
• Women’s Approach (Care/Relationship-Based): Might emphasize the human cost and relational impact, considering the suffering of Japanese families and future generations, advocating for alternatives that minimize harm.

Hierarchy of Values Involved

1. National Security: Protecting American and Allied lives by ending the war quickly.
2. Humanitarian Concern: Minimizing civilian casualties and suffering.
3. Strategic Victory: Achieving a decisive end to WWII to prevent further global conflict.
4. Moral Integrity: Upholding ethical standards in warfare, avoiding indiscriminate killing.
5. International Reputation: Maintaining the U.S.’s moral standing post-war, especially in the context of emerging Cold War dynamics.
6. Long-Term Peace: Preventing future conflicts or escalations, such as the nuclear arms race.

This analysis provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the ethical complexities of the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan during WWII. 

Sources

1 How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth M. Kidder

2 The Evolution of Morality: Exploring Kohlberg's Theory, Paperback – March 26, 2024 by Freudian Trips (Author)

3 Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker

4 Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt 4th Edition by John C. Gibbs (Author)