PDA

View Full Version : Moral Equivalence



Mister D
11-20-2011, 09:26 PM
Every so often I see some nitwit draw a moral equivalence between Auschwitz, for example, and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. The moron who inspired this will remain nameless but he's a logical positivist who didn't get the memo that logical positivism was utterly discredited as an epistemological theory before I was born. Anyway, what do you think and why?

Conley
11-20-2011, 09:56 PM
What do I think of comparing the two events or what do I think of logical positivism.

As for the former, I don't see any way to reason a moral equivalence. They were both horrible events to be sure but the circumstances were so different. Granted as an American it is difficult to look at either objectively.

Mister D
11-20-2011, 10:04 PM
What do I think of comparing the two events or what do I think of logical positivism.

As for the former, I don't see any way to reason a moral equivalence. They were both horrible events to be sure but the circumstances were so different. Granted as an American it is difficult to look at either objectively.


The former.

Nor do I. I'm curious to see if anyone does.

I think the temporal distance is one factor in making this sort of thing seem reasonable to some people.

Conley
11-20-2011, 10:15 PM
True, the time probably has been a factor. It would be terrible to have to be the one to make the decision to drop the bomb, but if I was in that position I believe I would have made the same decision.

Peter1469
11-20-2011, 10:23 PM
Both events were humans doing unthinkable things to other humans.

But then, the Nazis took their unthinkable actions before a world war while the allies took their action after a 6 year World War.

Conley
11-20-2011, 10:27 PM
However, you could argue that one of those heinous acts was undertaken in an effort to save more lives. To me that ends any moral argument right there.

Mister D
11-21-2011, 11:43 AM
However, you could argue that one of those heinous acts was undertaken in an effort to save more lives. To me that ends any moral argument right there.


Agreed. I don't buy the argument that Japan was about to surrender. The bombs were dropped to save lives in the long run and American lives in particular.

Peter1469
11-21-2011, 01:11 PM
The Japs had no ability to project military force. We didn't need to invade their home Islands- unless we were going to take it for ourselves. And we never attempted that.

We used the Bomb because the first nation to do so would be the world power. And we wanted to be that.

Mister D
11-21-2011, 01:22 PM
The Japs had no ability to project military force. We didn't need to invade their home Islands- unless we were going to take it for ourselves. And we never attempted that.

We used the Bomb because the first nation to do so would be the world power. And we wanted to be that.


Japan could project very little in the way of military force even before Iwo Jima and Okinawa but the war dragged on because Japan would not surrender. Besides, the Japanese home islands, which were under blockade and whose cities were being systematically leveled, would not have been spared regardless. All told, the death toll could conceivably have been even higher had the US sat on its hands hoping the "peace party" would win out. Disease, starvation, and conventional bombing would all have continued to take their toll both in Japan and in her garrisons.

Conley
11-21-2011, 01:28 PM
And after all that had happened could the U.S. afford to keep slogging it out and waiting for a Japanese surrender while sitting on the technology that could end it? Do we not make every effort to avoid war and then once committed, make every effort to win it? How would we judge American leaders if they sacrificed more of our men in the hopes that the Japanese would eventually see the writing on the wall?

Mister D
11-21-2011, 01:36 PM
And after all that had happened could the U.S. afford to keep slogging it out and waiting for a Japanese surrender while sitting on the technology that could end it? Do we not make every effort to avoid war and then once committed, make every effort to win it? How would we judge American leaders if they sacrificed more of our men in the hopes that the Japanese would eventually see the writing on the wall?


The argument hinges on the notion that the peace party in Japan could have won out. The military controlled the country. It's a doubtful proposition. The US public wanted an end to the war and there were few signs that Japan was giving way considering the resistance she put up on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Mind you, Us casualties began to sky rocket at this time and the fear of having to invade Japan was very real. The cynicism of hindsight is, IMO, almost obscene.

Peter1469
11-21-2011, 06:51 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?

Mister D
11-21-2011, 07:07 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?


Pride or our custom of war making? I don't doubt that racial and cultural differences caused a great deal of uncertainty and resulted in the viciousness displayed by both sides that became typical of the Pacific war. US marines sent Japanese bones and teeth back to their families and girlfriends. The Japanese murdered US prisoners and one officer reportedly ate the liver of a downed US pilot. Mind you, I'm not hailing the US as an angel. Frankly, I think the strategic bombing campaign was heinous, unnecessary, and ultimately criminal. I feel the same with regard to the leveling of Japan. We intentionally targeted civilians and killed a heck of a lot more of them using conventional arms than we did using atomic weapons. That said, I object to putting this on par with Auschwitz and the Holocaust. Apples and oranges. One was intended to end the war. The other was an act of war only in the most diseased Nazi minds. Our nameless moron speaks of justification. I'm sure a Nazi could justify what he did at a death camp. So? What is that supposed to prove? That's really all the same? Human beings can justify or rationalize anything. Does that make their rationalizations plausible or appropriate?

Sorry, Peter, something about that guy really irritates me.

Conley
11-21-2011, 07:09 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?


What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?

Mister D
11-21-2011, 07:13 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?


What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?


Even without an actual invasion we had millions of men stationed around the world who want to desperately to go home. Moreover, their families are worried sick about them. US leaders are responsible for American soldiers and their families. You lost the f'n war. Surrender.

Conley
11-21-2011, 07:19 PM
Right...not sure if my point was clear but what I meant was just leaving to them to their business on those islands could end up biting us later on down the line once they were resupplied and rearmed.

Mister D
11-21-2011, 07:28 PM
Right...not sure if my point was clear but what I meant was just leaving to them to their business on those islands could end up biting us later on down the line once they were resupplied and rearmed.


I understand. I doubt they could have mounted a serious offensive threat though even after regrouping. Their navy was shattered and we pretty much controlled the seas as well as the air. On the other hand, it's not about what I know now or what someone knew after the war. Obviously, we' weren't going to pack up, go home, and pretend it never happened. We were going to keep the pressure on Japan until the surrender.

Conley
11-21-2011, 07:36 PM
Got it. I guess for me it also makes no sense because all Japan had to do to end it was surrender. It wasn't as if we would have continued the war through that. Ultimately their leadership deserves the blame IMO.

Mister D
11-21-2011, 08:20 PM
Got it. I guess for me it also makes no sense because all Japan had to do to end it was surrender. It wasn't as if we would have continued the war through that. Ultimately their leadership deserves the blame IMO.


IMO, there was a serious cultural disconnect that prevented a less violent resolution. Throughout the war Japanese troops refused to surrender and willingly died for the Emperor. That could not have but heightened Americans' sense of Japanese fanaticism and fatalism.

Peter1469
11-21-2011, 09:23 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?


Pride or our custom of war making? I don't doubt that racial and cultural differences caused a great deal of uncertainty and resulted in the viciousness displayed by both sides that became typical of the Pacific war. US marines sent Japanese bones and teeth back to their families and girlfriends. The Japanese murdered US prisoners and one officer reportedly ate the liver of a downed US pilot. Mind you, I'm not hailing the US as an angel. Frankly, I think the strategic bombing campaign was heinous, unnecessary, and ultimately criminal. I feel the same with regard to the leveling of Japan. We intentionally targeted civilians and killed a heck of a lot more of them using conventional arms than we did using atomic weapons. That said, I object to putting this on par with Auschwitz and the Holocaust. Apples and oranges. One was intended to end the war. The other was an act of war only in the most diseased Nazi minds. Our nameless moron speaks of justification. I'm sure a Nazi could justify what he did at a death camp. So? What is that supposed to prove? That's really all the same? Human beings can justify or rationalize anything. Does that make their rationalizations plausible or appropriate?

Sorry, Peter, something about that guy really irritates me.


Agree 100%

Peter1469
11-21-2011, 09:25 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?


What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?


Resupply with what? Their islands were devastated. They were eating dirt pies.

The nukes were a message to the world. Not to Japan.

Mister D
11-21-2011, 09:32 PM
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us?

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?


What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?


Resupply with what? Their islands were devastated. They were eating dirt pies.

The nukes were a message to the world. Not to Japan.


True. Japan was pretty much done as far as their offensive capability was concerned. The weird thing is that there were still large but poorly supplied Japanese armies in China and the Pacific. Rabaul had something like 100K men. I forget where Rabaul is but since the Japanese navy was non-existent by 1945 all they could do was fortify their base there. They were totally cut off from the home islands.

Peter1469
11-21-2011, 09:40 PM
Agreed.

Still I would have used the nukes to set America up as the superpower.

But I would have done a better job in preventing our enemies from stealing our nuke designs.

Mister D
11-21-2011, 09:46 PM
Agreed.

Still I would have used the nukes to set America up as the superpower.

But I would have done a better job in preventing our enemies from stealing our nuke designs.


I'm not saying that wasn't a factor. I'm just not convinced that it was the primary factor.

Our government was riddled with Soviet spies throughout the 30s and 40s. Essentially, McCarthy was right. He did some good work. ;D

Peter1469
11-21-2011, 10:25 PM
agreed