Rhetoric 3302 Questions

I like what Rhichard thought about mankinds safety!! I thought it was interesting to hear someone have the same views as I do in this situation!! A good choice requires....not only knowledge, but also good moral character, and, sometimes Grace. I like that saying it is very true in my respect of the issue!! I believe that the people that go to wars are under order they may not necessarily want to hurt anybody or fight, but they do because they are ordered to do that by there instructures!! I believe that if people knew that the world was going to end very soon most of the people would panic not wanting to die and be a part of that!! Most people I believe are scared to die so why would they want to die at such young ages because the earth was going to blow up I believe there would be a crisis in towns because of people being histarical and scared to die!! This world would become madness!!

I like what Rhichard thought about mankinds safety!! I thought it was interesting to hear someone have the same views as I do in this situation!! A good choice requires....not only knowledge, but also good moral character, and, sometimes Grace. I like that saying it is very true in my respect of the issue!! I believe that the people that go to wars are under order they may not necessarily want to hurt anybody or fight, but they do because they are ordered to do that by there instructures!! I believe that if people knew that the world was going to end very soon most of the people would panic not wanting to die and be a part of that!! Most people I believe are scared to die so why would they want to die at such young ages because the earth was going to blow up I believe there would be a crisis in towns because of people being histarical and scared to die!! This world would become madness!!

Human Nature, Technological Man, and the Apocalyptic Tradition

The article brings up a lot of good points concerning the ‘moral decline’ of a nation that could allow the horrific atomic bombing of innocent civilians in a foreign country. I think few would disagree that the atomic bomb is one of the most shocking weapons in the world’s war arsenal. However, I would have liked to see the article attempt to analyze the issue from the perspective of American public that as a group allowed it to occur without protest. First, to many who supported it, it was a moral issue, and a complex one at that. The American public wasn’t looking at the issue of the bomb in terms of cold, calculating war-strategy—they were seeing thousands of their husbands, brothers, and sons dying, themselves powerless to stop it and no end in sight. American society had a choice—a difficult one—between killing thousands of innocent civilians in a foreign country or standing by while thousands of their countrymen and family members died. No, it wasn’t “right” to choose the bomb, but would it have felt right to the American society with so many of its own in the war to just allow it to drag on without prospect of end? It kind of comes back to the same old claim I made that “it is in human nature to be selfish”. I think a lot of people, if put in the position, would choose to stand by and passively allow thousands of strangers (whom they would never have to face) to die if it would save their own son or daughter.

Is this morally right? Probably not. While almost certainly wrong, it is something that seems to be imbedded in human nature. People have been killing each other in horrifying ways for thousands of years to save themselves and their kin. Maybe people as a whole have always been morally bankrupt, and the atomic bomb is just a symptom of that? How many people, when they see horrible disasters in far-away places on the news, really feel pain or empathy for those in the path of destruction? Perhaps just as much to blame for our apparent ‘moral decline’ is the technology of the television, which brings news of tragedies in graphic detail every day, desensitizing us to human death and suffering more than any weapon technologies ever could. Finally, despite the article’s claims, the bomb possibly did save lives, and did cut short the war. Yes, innocent civilians were killed, but are soldiers forced to kill and die for their country through a draft any less innocent? It seems to be a complex moral issue here, and I by no means want to say that dropping the atomic bomb was the right decision. It was a very complex issue—does it really signify a general moral decline? I don’t know.

I personally think it's unfair to say that there's a general moral decline. At least in the significant terms the article implied. In the case of the atomic bomb, it wasn't wrong and it wasn't right. Borrowing from last week's Multifaith Round-up, as Arvind Sharma the Hindu explained, life presents moral dilemmas and it's not right and wrong but perhaps two rights, and by following through with one, you forfeit the other. With this frame of mind, the dropping of the atomic bomb wasn’t the final straw in society’s declining morals. There are two “rights” in this situation and we picked one of them. As Sharma explained, you pick one because you value something more than something else. In this case we valued the lives of American soldiers over Japanese civilians. It doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t care about the Japanese civilian, it just means we care about our own more. Finally, I thought it was interesting to see Perry Miller’s take on Anglo-American apocalyptic literature. The end of the world is nothing new. The atomic age was just one scare of many. However, I don’t think that it will lead to the religious revival so many people are waiting for. While I’m sure there will be some people who follow through with repenting and what-not, I’m sure there will be many more that either a) don’t take it seriously or b) participate in the “orgies of debauchery”.

Human nature, technological man, the apocalyptic tradition

This article was shocking after I thought about how wrong it was for us to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. In war there are terrible tragedies that ensue, but soldiers act as if they are just responding to their duty and carrying out orders. It seems almost emotionless. I read the recount of the pilot who dropped the bomb and he said, “I knew the japs were in for it, but I felt no particular emotion for it.” It’s sick that a person can do something so evil and not think twice about it. The mentality of war is primitive because it is based on the playground rule, “he hit me first, so now I get to kick his butt!” In today’s world an initial act of evil can lead to a “righteous” genocide and that would be perfectly alright as long as the “good guys” won. Are we blind to see that there are no winners in killing people? It’s sad that we live among so many people who think violence and war are the answers. The small evil actions of all of us add up to a much larger greater evil that creates inharmony in the world today. The very fact we accept war as a resolution method is increasingly becoming stupider, and stupider. Pretty soon some crazed country (not North Korea) is going to pull out a nuclear pistol and start the end of the world with the press of a trigger switch.

I agree with several of the other posts. This is not a black and white situation of "good versus evil". That is a horribly simplistic way of looking at the events. In addition, it is easy for us to classify historical events with the fabulous benefit of hindsight as "good" or "bad", but everything is far more complex and multi-faceted when occuring in the now. The reason the US dropped the bomb was to avoid a costly invasion of the main Japanese islands--and the lives of hundreds of thousands of both Americans and Japanese. In addition, I bet if we had dropped the bomb on Hitler's Germany, less people would have voiced problems with it (since the Nazis is widely regarded as "evil", while the Japanese, who ALSO had concentration camps and committed ethnic cleansing are seen more as 'victims' of the war culture of their nation-- not that *I* am suggesting ANY country deserves mass death...).

I will grant what many people say: war is wrong, senseless and horrible. However, sometimes individuals or nations must be prepared to fight or die. If someone stabbed me, and made it clear they were going to kill me, I would DEFINATELY fight, although I deplore physical violence. It is in our survival nature. The same basic principle is true of nations. We didn't attack the Japanese first-- Pearl Harbor, anyone? Now the above argument does not validate, justify or promote the use of aggressive war or violence for control, domination or resources. That is an all-together separate issue.

In addition, I would argue against a "moral decline" that is so hotly assumed in this article. It was only in recent centuries that slavery was abolished, child labor prohibited, protections granted to women from their spouses, unspeakable tortures banned, and universal civil human rights recognized. Granted, not all of these are always applied, and individuals may violate them, but more and more of the world each year joins the above movements and ideas, stopping the most eggregious abuses and violence. Amnesty International didn't exist when the Church Inquisition burned people at the stake for their religious beliefs, or when people could be executed for stealing bread. Yes, evil things happen. Horrible atrocities occur. Yes, evil people continue to commit offenses against humanity. The important idea here is that there is a growing universal and mass recognition favoring protecting the weak, arrested, and downtrodden. Evil events, genocide, murder, hate, etc. have ALWAYS existed and occured. But society has not ALWAYS recognized these as evil. It is now that large groups are beginning to fight back against this evil as a social and governmental group. We would not be having this discussion if society did not recognize the evils discusses as such. I would not call that a "decline". I would probably want to classify that instead as "progress".

Nuclear Weaponry: I think it can easily be stated that any large amount of power, no matter what it is, can be disastrous if put into the wrong hands. And the fine line of determining who can live and who can’t is not an easy concept to decipher. But creating something that would protect the lives of hundreds is definitely something that I would consider a JUST cause. I understand that many innocent lives were lost when the bomb was dropped, but it also saved many as well. I sort of bugged me the way that McDonald described, “the official espoused moral code [of the government] was little more than a thin veneer.” It is not like dropping the bomb was a first and foremost priority - and that the government unconsciously decided to do it without a blink of an eye. Times were desperate and the lives of our soldiers were in danger. Although the bomb was dropped – countless lives were saved. It is our own natural instinct to protect those we care about, and the bomb was a sufficient solution keep everyone safe.

Everyone, gather round for a short story. My grandpa served in the war, World War II that is, and at the end of the war he had received orders to be a part of Operation Olympic, the first wave of the invasion of Japan scheduled for October 1945. It was a virtual death sentence, the invasion was expected to cost the lives of 500,000 American troops. He was in his company mess on August 6 when word came out that Hiroshima had been obliterated by the atomic bomb. The mess was silent for a few seconds then everyone started to cheer. As far as he and everyone in the mess was concerned their lives have been saved. With his life returned to him he went back home, had my mom, and lived a good long life. Without the atomic bomb I would never have been born. Was it moral? No, killing innocent people for any reason is wrong. It is tempting to equivocate in the ways Boyer mentions, by saying, “Oh, they started it, and they did evil things too, and there was no other way to end the war, and we had to show up the Russians anyway so its all good and everyone should just get over it already”. It doesn't work. Nothing can morally justify the annihilation of an entire city of innocents. But is this a new trend in humanity, callus acts of horrific violence? Of course not, its just easier now. Instead of burning a city with actual torches we can use a bomb.

I found the ethical argument comparing WWII atrocities to be quite interesting. The comparison was made between the collective effort of the Nazi concentration camps, and the collective effort of the US creating the A bomb. Both of these horrendous acts are quite comparable. It seems outrageous to compare these two acts of war, I guess because the A bomb is portrayed as a necessary action in US textbooks. But it was horrible and has caused so much tension and pain in the past seventy years, the same way the holocaust did. What is the difference between a Nazi guard executing hundreds of Jewish/homosexuals/gypsies, and a scientist whose actions can be linked to thousands of deaths to millions over the past seventy years. How is the US the good guys, how were our actions more noble. Military strategists have pointed out that the A bomb was definitely not necessary, but illustrate that the US were the next world power we further decimated a country and slaughtered women and children, and caused long-lasting nuclear pollution to subtly affected future generations in a grave manner.
I essential teaching of Gandhi is that a violent or extreme act is reciprocated by an equal response. If social change is desired then one must go about it in a way that is nonviolent and opposite of being extreme. Dropping an atomic bomb seems to be the most extreme thing someone can do, and the response will be as extreme. What an ignorant thing to do, to drop a bomb powered by an unearthly unnatural power. The effect was horrendous immediately such as the state of Japan post bombing. After that that tension that arose between Russia and the US, and the rest of the arms races around the world. What a poor move by the US to use such power and expect to be a long lasting world power. Seventy years is a blink of an historical eye, and we are still experiencing the massive affect of the A bomb for the worse of all of humanity.

I really liked the similarities of the atomic bomb and the holocaust. I do not agree with the choice to drop the bombs on the two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. The cities were not filled with military men but regular people including the elderly, women, and children. Everyone in the cities basically died instantly along with many that died after from complications. This use of evil by the “good guys” really showed an all-time low of morality in the US people. Many didn’t care the damages the bomb caused. One thing I thought was really interesting was the author wouldn’t shake Albert Einstein or Harold Urey’s hand because they are covered in blood. Many people wouldn’t shake Hitler’s hand, but this was the first I heard of not shaking Einstein’s hand. Both the holocaust and the bombing have one main similarity, they both brutalized human beings who were expected to change the world. Another bad thing with the bombs was so many people who worked on it didn’t know what they were even making. Many religious people also used the bomb as a way to get the number in the congregations up. The bomb was a way to show the end of the world, and how now there was little time until the apocalypse. This was important to the churches because people need to repent in order to be saved at the end, and you could only repent in church. So going to church means you get saved.

My initial reaction is that all science and technology are morally neutral and that the ethical issues arising from them are purely human issues about the application of these technologies. I still mainly hold to that. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with nuclear technology itself, which is an important breakthrough in science as a whole and has major applications for power production, medicine, engineering, etc.

However, I think it’s hard to argue that using nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons is a morally correct use of technology in itself; the only purpose of a nuclear bomb is destruction (although the existence of them is said to be a deterrant against this destruction). Of course, I suppose this is true of ANY military technology… nuclear weapons only differ in the scope of the devestation they can cause. It IS terrifying to think that technology exists which is able to end civilization as we know it, but it seems strange to draw a line at one stage but not another. Is there some magical point where bomb technology is ethical, and another where it suddenly isn’t? What’s the degree of destructive potential required for a killing device to become morally wrong to manufacture?

The question about the ethics of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still difficult. On one hand, projections suggest that it ultimately saved lives by forcing a quick end to the war. On the other hand, it is still intentionally slaughtering innocent people, which seems inherently wrong. The theory of utiliarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- would argue that the choice to drop the bombs was the ethically correct decision, but it’s a little hard to accept that without reservation. It all comes down to the age old question of if the ends can justify the means, and I don’t have a good answer for that.

human nature-
this was a very good reading with interesting views from both religious and secular critics of the atomic bomb. im sure its incredibly obvious by now my views on religion, so i don't mean to be redundant, but after reading what many of the religious critics said about the attack, i couldn't help but notice a serious contradiction in their comments. the section of the reading that focused on these critics spoke about how an individual should feel responsible for actions taken by command from a higher power, and should therefore feel morally responsible for actions taken. i can't really think of a system that is more similar to that of god and man as defined by religion, at least by christianity. in addition to this, i found it fascinating that secular and religious belivers both spoke of the bomb symbolizing the end of the world. a rare instance where two polar beliefs agreed. i basically agreed with everything that mcdonald had to say. i do agree that science can go too far and that sometimes simple curiosity cannot be enough reason to pursue the creation of something such as the atomic bomb. science appears, especially in these sorts of instances, to be void of ethics. although i don't think this is always the case.

"Human Nature, Technological Man, the Apocalyptic Tradition" by Paul Boyer

I thought the atomic crisis was good to use as a historical illumination of life's deepest issues. For me it made me think more about tragic historical times that happened in our world. The atomic bomb project was suppose to offer a "clear and convincing illustration" of the christian doctrine of original sin. An interesting quote was: "The fact that 'everybody' agrees that war, torture, and the massacre of helpless people are Evil is not reassuring to me. It seems to show that our ethical code is no longer experienced but is simply assumed, so that it become's a collection of more platitudes" Is this similiar to how people feel about the war today? I certianly don't like what is going on with the war. I don't know if "evil" is the right word to describe it, but it certainly isn't good. Boyer has an interesting way of writing and describing things, for example: "Sometimes...the hideousness of the world rises up and almost chokes us. At such moments it does seem fitting that man should stretch his fossil out beside that of Tyrannosaurus and let the mosquitoes have the next try. The Creator might then set down in His book that the experiment of the brain was not a success." This quote just kind of blew me out of the water when I read this. Also in the article they mention that God will someday bring human history to an end, judge mankind, and "institute a new era of righteousness". Do you think this will happen? I have heard things that God will return as a human figure on the presence of Earth, only if the word of him gets to every human being. If he would return then, would he then begin to judge mankind and then "institute a new era of righteousness"? Lastly, it describes how William Whiston was influenced by Isaac Newton's work on gravity, and he then predicted that the "New Theory of the Earth" would have the final holocaust come when "a comet brushed the Earth in its orbit of the sun". I don't think this will happen, but science does some crazy stuff. It further goes on to describe that if it would happen, the survivors would reform and lead a righteous, peaceful, and harmony world and life. Sounds like something that was mentioned before about God returning to the world. Overall this was an interesting article that does a lot of relating back to past history.

I thought it was interesting that the Holocaust was compared to the atomic bomb project because they are differ in several ways. The Nazi camps lasted a number of years while the event in Hiroshima occurred in a single moment. Dropping a bomb occurs in a single moment and the attacks on Japan were part of a military response to Pearl Harbor. People are more likely to identify unethical behaviors of the Nazis because it involved people directly killing and torturing people individually--whereas the attack on Japan was a single blast. As far as ethics are concerned, I think science has blurred the line between what is ok and what is not. We now have greater capabilities than in the past. We are able to wipe out a large area in one detonation. Throughout history, we have seen fiercely competitive cultures causing damage with the resources they have access to. Nuclear technology is an example of large-scale present day military defense, used to secure a civilization in the eyes of its enemies. It is indeed frightening for our culture to have the ability to disperse such powerful damage so rapidly.

This was a very interesting article. I have heard bits and pieces about the atomic bomb, but had never looked this deep into it. I had also never thought it could be comparable to what Hitler did, but in a way, I guess it can be. Was it morally right? No. I mean, there were a lot of innocent people killed. However, I think when we set this thing off, we thought we were doing for the right reasons, not just in cold blood. I don't know exactly how all this political and world stuff works, but sometimes you have to go to drastic measures to get someones attention. Was killing hundreds of innocent people the way to do it? Probably not the best way, but at the time, it seemed right. By saying this was not the best way to go about things, I am not implying that war is wrong. There is a time and place for it, but you need to be "tactful" in doing so.

Human Nature, Technological Man

Its sick nuclear bombs are used. Thousands of laborers developed the Nuclear weapon working within very specialized occupations and turned a blind-eye to the ultimate destruction created. Effective Manhattan Project administrative compartmentalization allowed for partial social blindness.

Soldiers do not blindly follow orders. They have indirectly chosen destruction and promote these values through "service" to their country. What makes their country more important than other's? Taken out of a religious context, the phrase "Live by the sword, die by the sword” makes sense. Quid pro Quo.

Moral decline does not exist. Destruction, war, violence, always existed, and will continue to exist. Science accelerates our ability to make war and cause death. But, of course, science also makes our lives much more comfortable. Two sides to every story.

Although I am not in anyway in favor of mass killing of innocent civilians, I think that the situation and the unknowns regarding the future made the dropping of the atomic bomb a more legitimate decision. Although it would have been soldiers, thousands of lives would have been lost in a war with the Japanese on the Pacific. After the years of intense war, the leaders, commanders and troops were tired, and after Pearl Harbor, I don't think there were many who were up for sympathizing with the "japs". It's very sad that it had to be that way, but it was the only wayt to bring about a speedy end to the greatest war in history.

Soldiers do not blindly follow orders, and they are not machines made for the domination of the globe by one country. They are men and women who have a strong patriotic spirit and are willing to put their lives on the line to defend their country and the morals on which their country is based. In some occasions, they will be called upon to carry out a task such as the bombing of Japan and it is their duty to follow the orders. I have a deep respect for those who serve our country willingly. No person can put the blame of the bombings onto one soldiers shoulders. It was a desicion made by a country.

Thank you for cool site,
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy biagra[/url]

Glad to see this site.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]

Thnx guys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]