VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:37:09 08/16/08 Sat
Author: Ned Depew
Author Host/IP: 75.105.21.173
Subject: Dawg , the argument is...
In reply to: Prairie Dawg 's message, "Ned...some light reading" on 00:03:26 08/14/08 Thu

endless, and as I said, I don't see the point. Speculating about what might have happened and whether it was "wrong" or "right" keeps Doctoral Candidates in History out of more serious trouble, but what is important is to learn as much as we can from what actually did happen, no?

There's so much material out there - believe me, for every piece of "evidence" you can show "proving" that that actions taken against Hiroshima (and Nagasaki?) were "justified" there are equally dense reams of material indicating that it was by no means the "only" option that had any chance of success, and suggesting that those other options could easily have been investigated and attempted without "losing" the option of introducing atomic weapons if and when all other means failed.

The interest in this discussion for me is in how the decision that was made, came about. That decision-making process has profound implications, as I've indicated above, for the mindset that accepts the concept of "pre-emptive war" (previously an act classified as a "Crime Against Humanity"). It's at the basis of George W. Bush claiming that he would move against Iraq and sacrifice American lives "only as a last resort."

You argue - along with a number of scholars and historians - that the bombings in Japan were justified, but no one in that case - especially from our perspective of decades of hindsight - would argue that it was truly a "last resort."

It's how such arguments arise, and how the moral implications and consequences they carry are weighed (if they are) or ignored (if they are) that is of interest in trying to make better decisions (if that is possible) in the future.

As a moral philosophy, I do disagree that "Japan forced our hand" - the "look what you made me do" aqrgument.

Hopalong Cassidy would never indulge the weakness of character that allows others to dictate one's behavior or compromise one's moral code. Hoppy realized - as Camus's protagonist Mersault did as well - that we and we alone are responsible for the decisions we make and the actions we take. We cannot control circumstances, but we can direct our own reactions to them.

Do we compromise our own moral code, accept the barbarity that is euphemised as "acceptable collateral damage," and its clear implication that "the ends justify the means?" And if we do, does that mean that others with conflicting agendae are also free to base their own actions on that same rationale?

Are you arguing that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were acceptable - as long as those who perpetrated them believed the "had no choice" and that they "were compelled to do it?" by what they perceived as America's intransigent exploitative and blasphemous attitude? I hope not.

You still haven't spoken to the issue of "death before dishonor." I've often wondered if that wasn't at base an expression, in another formulation, of Christ's admonitiion to "turn the other cheek?"

This is one of the most radical of Christ's suggestions. It's hard to understand how such a revolutionary idea avoided excision from the Bible - except that, like DBD it was twisted into a justification for passivity and helplessness, or dismissed as pie-in-the-sky idealism.

The arguments about what shoulda-woulda-coulda happened have an interest for me as well. But in my case, it is in learning how such immoral, simplistic and in the end irrational thinking as "we were forced into it," "we did it for the good of all (even those targeted)," "the ends justify the means," and "we didn't have any choice" become foundations of public policy and private morality.

If there is a part of "human nature" that we were "put on earth to rise above," in my opinion, that kind of thinking would be a key part of it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.