If we follow a utilitarian ethical model, do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was commendable?

Question

Thanks for your input..

Answer 1

Maybe my understanding of utilitarianism is a little rusty, but it would seem that it follows the Principle of Utility. This, if I remember, is to say that an action is good if and only if it maxmimizes happiness and minimizes suffering.

Therefore, it would seem to say that the minimization of suffering in this case does not apply. I would answer, then, No to your question.

Death and violence do not appear to maximize happiness, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly did not minimize suffering. I suppose, however, the argument could be that the bombing minimized American suffering.

The question then becomes, is an American Life worth more than the Life of a Japanese citizen?

Before I get myself all jumbled up, following Utilitarianism and the PoU I would say No, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not commendable.

Answer 2

I'm from Nagasaki, but have been an American citizen for quite some time.

Many of my relatives suffered the consequences of the bombing and to this day, I still receive hateful comments about being of Japanese origin.

"Commendable" is a hard word for me to apply here. It was surely a difficult decision to make, and we could sit here and try to analyze what would have happened had the bombs not been dropped - but the outcome was exactly what was predicted. A lot of people died and Japan surrendered.

I am not proud by any means of what my ancestors have done throughout Asia and to Americans. On the flip side, I have some pride in going back to Nagasaki and seeing that city reborn. There is a US Naval base in nearby Sasebo, and generally our relations there are positive.

For me, "commendable" is not the most appropriate term. I can't describe in only one word how I feel, but overall I would say that it pretty much had to happen if the US were to achieve victory.

Answer 3

If you value human life, Japanese and American alike, you have to say yes it was a good solution to a terrible problem. The ONLY japanese territory with a significant civilian poputaion that we (America and allies) assaulted was Okinawa.

The death toll there, both civilian and military, was horrendous.

The Japanese were actively planning an aggressive defense of thier homeland (duh!). There were training there women and children to fight. (Given their culture this is HUGE!) There would have been VERY FEW non-combatants. A large percentage of the Japanese would have had to have been annihilated before peace could have occurred.

Sakalin island is another good example. When the Russians stromed and took this island the casualty rate among this civilian populous was horrendous.

So, unless the will and spirit of the japanese people coul dhave been broken, the death toll would have exceeded the total death toll of Hiroshima AND nagasaki.

Point in fact. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed and maimed MORE japanese people than nuking Hiroshima! Why are you NOT asking about that?

All this being said and with a great deal more that could be said I have to say that by a utilitarian ethincal model where you value human life and choose to maximize happiness and more importantg minimize suffering then YES it was both a good decision AND a good outcome.

i.e. Millions of lives were saved. Tens of millions of people were spared further ravigaes of war.

Answer 4

Under a utilitarian ethical model, you would simply compare the number of lives lost versus the amount saved to determine whether the greatest good was achieved for the greatest amount of people. While it is speculative to state how many lives were saved, it seems probable that the number of American and Japanese lives ultimately saved by the bombing justified the use of the bomb under this ethical model. Had the bomb not been used, it is likely that many more Japanese cities would have been destroyed by fire bombing and Japan would have had to be invaded resulting in far greater loss of life. The presumption being made is that preventing loss of life is for the greater good. Should greater loss of life resulted in better conditions for the surviving population, then the analysis is defective under the utilitarian model.

Answer 5

I think the shock factor was necessary, because fire bombing the civilians and towns was having the opposite effect of the A bomb, it was only strengthening an already terribly determined enemy to fight that much harder.

The atomic nature of the bomb and the devastation that a "single" bomb could bring forth really led to the decisive surrender of our mortal enemy.

In the end, yes, dropping them saved many lives, and many of those lives were Americans, and that is to whom the President had to answer.

On a side note, awhile back HBO did a movie special on Truman . . . they barely mentioned the decision, made it seem like he was ordering a pizza when he ordered the bombing. I find it hard to believe that anyone could order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people so cavalierly. That movie made it seem like he wasn't haunted by that decision for the rest of his life, which, were he a great leader, he should have been. Doing the "right" isn't always morally easy.

Answer 6

Lets see..
the utilitarian premise is to "Act as to create the greatest good"
However, the problem there is with measurement. Did the good created for the US and its allies compensate for the evil experienced by the Japanese? You would need to measure the total "good" created amongst the allies and the total "evil" created among the Japanese. Since good and evil cant be measured, it is hard to say.
This is one of the major shortfalls of Utilitarianism.

Answer 7

I would not call it commendable. However, it was expedient.

We were at war. Japan was the enemy. We bombed the snot out of them. They would not have thought twice about doing the same to use if they invented "the bomb" before we did.

Ultimately, it ended the war.

Answer 8

I wouldnt say commendable but necessary to end the war.

Answer 9

I think I would have to ask if the one-two million that would have died had there been an invasion needs to be looked at too.

Answer 10

yes.

unlike today's terrorist enemies, the japanese army and soldier were crazy brave and would have fought street for street, inch for inch for the occupation of the japanese island.

the subsequent conquering of japan would have killed millions and millions of innocent japanese and erased much of japanese culture.

these bombings were the hideous logical outcome of an unthinkable war...