The targeting of civilians during wartime has been a controversial topic throughout history, occurring for as long as there has been a distinguishable difference between the military and civilians. As civilizations have progressed this distinction has become clearer, and more recently a member of the military is a committed individual whose job is to fight. This division of humans into those who fight and those who don’t creates a moral dilemma when hurting non-combatants, in addition to the moral rules already being violated by waging war in the first place. Modern weapons have been a major factor in further exacerbating the issue by allowing for the indiscriminate killing of peoples on a massive scale. Among the many instances of air strikes and different kinds of bombs which have been used to this end, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are particularly notorious.
The use of atomic weapons in Japan was the first and only instance of nuclear weapons being used in a war. The European Theater had come to a close, leaving Japan as the last Axis power to be defeated. As the USA fought their way closer to Japan through an island-hopping campaign, they were met with fierce resistance. To expedite the process of defeating Japan, and in an attempt to avoid a land invasion, the bombs were used to shock the Japanese into surrendering. Applying consequential ethical arguments, we can seek to determine the legitimacy of America’s proclaimed moral high ground on the decision to indiscriminately kill thousands of people.
It’s important to note that there are different narratives to the end of WWII, as Hasegawa points out in his book Racing the Enemy – Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. America has adopted its story that the bombs were necessary on the grounds that alternatives would have caused more death and destruction. However, this is only valid if the two bombs were in fact the cause of Japans surrender. Hasegawa posits that the bombs “alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender”, instead arguing that it was the “Soviet participation in the war” which spurred Emperor Hirohito to act (Hasegawa pg. 298). This challenge to the consequence of the atomic bombs is important when deciding if killing civilians was justified.
127 our experts are availableright now
If we consider Professor Bernard Gert and his 10 moral rules as a starting point for the morality behind the atomic bombs use, we see many conflicts. The decision of Albert Einstein (one of the moral actors) to send a letter recommending investment in uranium research knowing that it could be used for bombs indirectly implicates him in the violations of do not kill, do not cause pain, and do not disable, while simultaneously upholding do your duty. Einstein states that he feels it is his “duty to bring to your attention the following…” (Einstein 1939). The other main actors include Harry Truman, Emperor Hirohito, and Japanese policy makers. All had similar conflicts as they chose their priorities. Truman believed that the use of the bombs was “a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace” (US Dep. Of State 1947). Therefore, violations of morals were for the sake of those same rules on a bigger scale, in addition to do not deprive of freedom. These prioritizations were for the sake of promoting good consequences from the perspective of the actors.
However, a good question is whether intent for good consequences or achieving good consequences is what makes a decision ethical. Both the Japanese and American governments had the responsibility to try and secure the best future for their respective peoples. For Japan, that meant either achieving an armistice to maintain power and pride, or surrendering and not losing more lives. For America, it was to secure peace and remove the threat Japan posed to North America. Doing so through continuing to conventionally bomb Japan, carry out a land invasion, or use the atomic bombs were the alternatives presented through the American narrative. For our purposes, we will judge an act as ethical if it had the intent for good consequences. This also takes into account the consequences of alternatives. I uphold the argument that Truman’s decision to use the bomb was ethical, on the grounds that the intent was to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible and with as few American casualties as possible.
Estimates showed that a land invasion would have resulted in massive losses on both sides, on account of resistance from the Japanese people. Conventional bombs had already killed thousands, and would kill thousands more if used as an alternative. The difference is that thousands killed in one explosion would have a greater impact on the Japanese. If we approach it from the perspective that good consequences had to be actually achieved from the bombs, then there is a stronger case that it was an unethical decision. The argument that the Soviets caused the surrender makes the bombs and the people they killed pointless. However, it is highly likely that the bombs contributed to the surrender. Based on do not kill, do not cause pain, do not disable, do not deprive of freedom, and do your duty, the violations of these with the intent to prevent worse violation makes these consequentially ethical. Furthermore, Truman went public regarding the bombs, explaining what they were and that they had been used.
Finally, we should consider the responsibility of voters in a nation with a representative government. Candidates have explicit policy tendencies before being voted into office, making the decision of voting one way a moral choice. Voters expect certain outcomes or consequences from their candidate’s actions, making them moral actors. However, they shouldn’t be ethically responsible. It’s very unlikely that any vote for Truman was cast knowing the atomic bomb would be dropped or much less existed. The bombs broke several moral codes, but through consequential reasoning we can conclude the intent of Truman was to uphold those codes on a larger scale.
