Reason without ethics is an instrument that doesnt guarantee the moral quality of its results, sciences and technology left to itself can become dangerous to humanity rather than good
2006-09-30 03:35:35 · 12 answers · asked by fuschiafish 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
The danger was the World War II going on for about 5 years in two theaters , Europe and Asia . and the Hiroshima Bomb can also be wived as positive,since it ended both of them. Therefore saving many more lives that would have been lost had the war continued. Surely it was a decision that it was the lesser of two evils. The danger to Humanity were the wars, the Holocaust, and it needed to be ended.
2006-09-30 03:56:55 · answer #1 · answered by pooterilgatto 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without the bomb dropping on Hiroshima, Japan would not have surrendered when it did and many more lives would have been lost than just those at Hiroshima. Debate the moral question of war in general, but the idea is to make the other side lose to the point that it no longer sees war as an option and surrenders. Many avenues are open until war breaks out. Once war is in progress, the options are limited. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, it has positive effects... Without science, we would be stuck in the iron age with the average life span of 35 years burning curious women at the stake for being witches.
2006-09-30 03:48:15 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Cellophane 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people are missing the point, by focusing on the strategic decision of using the bomb on Hiroshima, and whether that negative (the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians) was in fact a positive (the prevention of the killing of millions more). That's not the issue. The real question is whether the use of science to come up with bigger and deadlier weapons is an indication that science is not all positive.
The answer is that, in the sense that you mean 'positive' (as in Good), science is neither positive nor negative. Science is the pursuit of knowledge ... and knowledge can *always* be used in positive and negative ways. It is the rest of us, the non-scientists (particularly politicians, who we elect) who make decisions on what scientific inquiries to fund, and what to do with the results.
For example, pure science doesn't set out to produce medicine. Things like antibiotics and X-rays weren't originally discovered with medicine in mind. But as a society we value discoveries in that direction, we fund that kind of research, and we use the results in that kind of 'positive' way.
Just as science deserves the credit for the knowledge ... but not (all) the credit for the decision to use it in medicine ... science does not deserve (all) the blame for the decision to use that knowledge in weapons.
2006-09-30 07:15:25 · answer #3 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The use of the bomb proved that the application of technologies may create local mayhem and human despair which is never good. War is hell, FDR, who authorized the dropping of this bomb has a famous quote which appears at his memorial in DC, "I hate war."
You cannot examine only the immediate human suffering that occurred when this bomb was used without examining the total historical setting. If this bomb saved 10 times as many lives as it took (by ending a devastating war) then in balance it may have been good. Each person must satisfy his own conscience concerning this and the use of anything like this in the future.
Scientific advances are neither good or bad, man's application of them is what needs close, continuous examination.
2006-09-30 03:44:52 · answer #4 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Dropping the bomb has been described as an atrocity of war to end a war of atrocities, it was a terrible thing, yes, but the alternative would have resulted in the loss of many more lives and the near destruction of Japan. It was the lesser of two evils.....science and technology are neutral, good or bad depends on the person using it.
2006-09-30 03:51:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The sad thing is, humanity truly learned a lesson when we dropped that bomb. We did not fully uinderstand the exten of the damage until AFTER it was done.
Sometimes it takes something awful to happen to realize what we have.
2006-09-30 03:44:26 · answer #6 · answered by rouschkateer 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Everything--science, religion, art, literature, medicine, you name it--can be perverted to evil ends. Hiroshima wasn't required to prove this.
2006-09-30 03:39:39 · answer #7 · answered by NotEasilyFooled 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ahh, but it WAS positive. The bombing of only two cities ended a war. I would say that is a big positive.
2006-09-30 03:45:28 · answer #8 · answered by Traveler 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The bomb is still positive try to picture your self in my situation swamp overwhelming odds millions of enimies who are not entitle to this earth to begin with, how do I spell relief N-U-C-L-E-A-R.
2006-09-30 07:05:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hi. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge. It is what we do with that knowledge that can be positive or not.
2006-09-30 03:38:41 · answer #10 · answered by Cirric 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋