The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

@Foofie,

Quote:

I still do not see all humans of equal value.

I wonder if Hitler may have shared this same logic. Do you think it was a logic worth holding if he did share this same logic as you?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Nothing "shot right over my head." There is no good philosophical reason to equate the holocaust in Europe to the atomic bombing of Japan.

Do you hold some sort of empirical evidence to your claim?

Quote:

Do you really think that it's possible to wage war in the modern era without putting civilians at risk?

No

Quote:

You have never explained what it is that you think the United States ought to have done to end that war without using the bombs.

That is because an explanation like that requires a degree in philosophy and I do not think that you are interested in moral philosophy anyways.

A short answer to the problem. Our biggest problems lay outside of out ethical radius. When you view people different than you view your own mother you value them less.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Like I said it went right over your head. Killing Innocent, men, women, children and babies is immoral. Killing the Jews was immoral. You can find reasons that seem to justify actions but immorality is immorality

If the bombing were "immoral" hould all "immoral acts" be lumped together, without distinction?

Cyclops and I had a discussion years ago in a thread about the relative morality on killing. Cyclops held the view -- as perhaps all left-thinking pacifists do -- that every killing was morally equivalent. I posited that there was a distinction to be made between a robber who shoots an innocent victim, and a police officer who shoots a robber to prevent him from killing an innocent victim. Cyclops equated the two killings; I do not.

Set's very clear answer to the question posed in the OP is straight to the point: "The Jews of Europe did not start a war, they did not invade other countries, they did not attempt to conquer their neighbors and enslave them. Japan did." It seems quite clear to me that the bombing were more moral than the Holocaust, and they are not morally equivalent.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
You have never explained what it is that you think the United States ought to have done to end that war without using the bombs.

That is because an explanation like that requires a degree in philosophy ...

Can you explain why such an explanation would require a degree in philosophy?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Just a pet peeve, that's all.

One of my pet peeves is other people's stupid pet peeves.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

If the bombing were "immoral" hould all "immoral acts" be lumped together, without distinction?

You can have distinction but immorality is still immorality.

Quote:

Cyclops and I had a discussion years ago in a thread about the relative morality on killing. Cyclops held the view -- as perhaps all left-thinking pacifists do -- that every killing was morally equivalent.

Just because we find them distinct and even I may have to engage in killing for self defense does not make killing moral it only means that I chose to engage in an immoral act so that I could live.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

Can you explain why such an explanation would require a degree in philosophy?

Understanding all subjects require a little foreknowledge in order to be understood. Can you see where it would be important to have other mathematical skills before moving forward on the mathematical ladder so to speak?

If you know nothing or never had an interest in math, "physics may be a step to far to take.
It requires some degree of knowledge before moving forward.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Tico wrote:
If the bombing were "immoral" hould [*should] all "immoral acts" be lumped together, without distinction?

You can have distinction but immorality is still immorality.

Your OP asked what are the moral differences. You asked: "What do you think are the moral differences between the holocaust and the bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"

Do you see any difference, or do you see "immorality is still immorality," and hold that as your position on this issue? You see no distinction?

If that's the case, why didn't you word your OP: "The Holocaust and bombing Japan were both immoral. Discuss ..."?

Quote:

Quote:
Cyclops and I had a discussion years ago in a thread about the relative morality on killing. Cyclops held the view -- as perhaps all left-thinking pacifists do -- that every killing was morally equivalent.

Just because we find them distinct and even I may have to engage in killing for self defense does not make killing moral it only means that I chose to engage in an immoral act so that I could live.

Okay, but that begs the question that you asked in your OP: Assuming arguendo that both acts are immoral, do YOU find them distinct?

Are you as immoral as the criminal you killed in self-defense?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Regarding why RL won't say what the US ought to have done to end the war without using the bombs, Tico wrote:
Can you explain why such an explanation would require a degree in philosophy?

Understanding all subjects require a little foreknowledge in order to be understood. Can you see where it would be important to have other mathematical skills before moving forward on the mathematical ladder so to speak?

So you cannot provide the explanation because you don't have enough knowledge. Gotcha.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

Your OP asked what are the moral differences. You asked: "What do you think are the moral differences between the holocaust and the bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"

Neither were moral acts.

Quote:

Do you see any difference, or do you see "immorality is still immorality," and hold that as your position on this issue? You see no distinction?

Yes you are starting to get it.

Quote:

If that's the case, why didn't you word your OP: "The Holocaust and bombing Japan were both immoral. Discuss ..."?

When one is looking for response to a question does it make that much of a difference of how you word it? Would your response have been different?

If I asked it that way would you see the two events in a different light than you do now?

Quote:

Okay, but that begs the question that you asked in your OP: Assuming arguendo that both acts are immoral, do YOU find them distinct?

Do you mean like light in day or moral or immoral? If so no

Quote:

Are you as immoral as the criminal you killed in self-defense?

I see that similar to purposing a math question incorrectly.

The question should be were both acts immoral or moral and if so what makes them so?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

So you cannot provide the explanation because you don't have enough knowledge. Gotcha.

The explanation of physics can not be understood by the student because he lacks foreknowledge not because he is stupid. Wink

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Tico wrote:
Do you see any difference, or do you see "immorality is still immorality," and hold that as your position on this issue? You see no distinction?

Yes you are starting to get it.

Oh, good.

Since I'm merely "starting" to get it, the implication is that there is a lot more depth to your position (beyond "immoral = immoral"), which I have yet to "get."

Care to enlighten me?

RL wrote:

Tico wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't you word your OP: "The Holocaust and bombing Japan were both immoral. Discuss ..."?

When one is looking for response to a question does it make that much of a difference of how you word it?

Are you serious? You are asking whether it makes a difference how you word your question? Of course it makes a difference.

RL wrote:

If I asked it that way would you see the two events in a different light than you do now?

Nope.

RL wrote:

Tico wrote:
Okay, but that begs the question that you asked in your OP: Assuming arguendo that both acts are immoral, do YOU find them distinct?

Do you mean like light in day or moral or immoral? If so no

Did that make sense to you when you typed it out?

Why don't you try again, but this time try to answer the question asked, not the question you might prefer.

RL wrote:

Tico wrote:
Are you as immoral as the criminal you killed in self-defense?

I see that similar to purposing a math question incorrectly.

What does my question have to do with math?

RL wrote:

The question should be were both acts immoral or moral and if so what makes them so?

No, I'll ask the question the way I want to ask it. (And according to you, it doesn't matter how I ask the question.)

So, forgetting about math for the moment, what's the answer to my question: "Are you as immoral as the criminal you killed in self-defense?"

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Tico wrote:
So you cannot provide the explanation because you don't have enough knowledge. Gotcha.

The explanation of physics can not be understood by the student because he lacks foreknowledge not because he is stupid.

What a cop-out.

When a "teacher" is afraid to provide an explanation, chances are high that the "teacher" doesn't have the first foggiest clue what he's talking about.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

Bombing the Japanese had "extenuating circumstances," the Holocaust did not, unless one believes that Hitler was cleaning up Europe for the good Aryans.

Let me guess, You think that America believed that they had "extenuating circumstances," but you do not think that Hitler believed he had an "extenuating circumstances," on his hands and was trying to clean up Europe?

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Let me guess, You think that America believed that they had "extenuating circumstances," but you do not think that Hitler believed he had an "extenuating circumstances," on his hands and was trying to clean up Europe?

Foofie is speaking about "justification," and claiming the US had justification when it bombed Japan.

Do you believe in justification? When you killed the robber in self-defense, was that a justified killing?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

Foofie is speaking about "justification," and claiming the US had justification when it bombed Japan.

Do you believe in justification? When you killed the robber in self-defense, was that a justified killing?

I thought that we were talking about morality and not justifications.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I thought that we were talking about morality and not justifications.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

You got a mouse in your pocket?

The OP is about moral differences not about justifications. Every group has justifications for their actions but it does not mean their actions are moral.

Quote:

Foofie is speaking about "justification," and claiming the US had justification when it bombed Japan.

Foofie quoted below

Quote:

I still do not see all humans of equal value.

When we view other humans this way you can expect there to wars and conflicts that are based on this value system.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You aren't going to answer any substantive questions put to you, are you?

I'm outta here.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What do you mean by shorty after the dropping of the bomb, if not in 1945?

The US Strategic Bombing Survey, which served as a major authoritative source for the bomb's critics, was released in July 1946. Criticism based on the bombs' destructive power and the fact that it overwhelmingly killed noncombatant civilians instead of soldiers and war-industry workers existed at the time of the bombing, although it seems to have been restricted to a tiny fraction of society.

However I was referring more to the criticism based on a re-evaluation of the bombings' official justification.
It was in 1948 that Patrick Blackett published his book FEAR, WAR, AND THE BOMB: Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy.
I may be wrong, but to my knowledge he was the first one to argue and present compelling arguments that the bombs had been dropped for diplomatic reasons and not for military ones.

So I'd put 1948 as the start of the battle between the "offical/orthodox" version and the "revisionist" one.

Certainly, not some recent development nor "current online bullshit".

Setanta wrote:

you have a lot of allegations in your post, but no evidence that the intent was not to end the war as quickly as possible.

That's because that is NOT what the quoted works intend to do. At no point is it argued that Truman's intent was not to end the war as quickly as possible.

The dispute is over the WHY : to save American and Japanese lives - as the official version purports? or other non-military considerations, namely diplomatic ones?

The evidence presented - notably, but not only, from Truman's own writings - does make quite a strong case for the latter.

1 Reply

The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know