Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

I think that I would like to have more background information concerning the atomic bombs before I decide where I stand on the subjects. I was under the impression that if we did not use the bombs, the United States would lose more men than would be lost during the explosion of the bombs. I am not saying that this makes the decision ethical or uncontroversial, but I think there is something to be said in protecting our people. I also realize that this could be the reason for any such destruction, but I was under the impression that there was evidence to back up our reasoning.
I thought a few points that the author made were interesting. One such point was the idea of small individual actions can add up to a great social evil, such as in corporations. I had never thought about this idea of collective evil.
Another interesting point that the author made was whether a catastrophe causes people to become an uncontrollable mob or a moral utopian. I think this relates back to the question of whether we are innately good or evil. Which is it?

Bad things happen in war but I would not call it a ‘moral decline.’ People understand war is ethically wrong but necessary. By necessary I mean it is a natural instinct to fight and defend. When people stop realizing the difference between right and wrong that is when I will begin believing there is a moral decline. Violence is part of the human existence and I have come to acknowledge this. Hiroshima, Vietnam, and 9/11, etc. Atrocious acts have been committed by humans to other humans and will continue to. In the moment when the decision was made to drop the Atomic Bomb, there was justification in the eyes of the American people, but since that moment, no one dares to repeat such an incident. The ideology of ‘morals’ is subjective and limited to a particular time periods. Cultures have their own views of culture as well and everything has to be regarded in context.

I don’t really have a definite opinion about the use of the atomic bomb in World War II. On one hand, it was an amazing scientific accomplishment in terms of isolation of energy. On the other hand, the atomic bomb as a bomb used to destroy life is a major point of contention (obviously). As for now and into the future, I think the world should do away with nuclear arms. The use of nuclear energy as a weapon is not practical. I say this in regards to it does not necessarily give those who use them an upper hand, but of course they serve a purpose and serve it well. As for the ramifications of using the bomb in World War II, I think the author made an interesting point–the realization of the destruction of the nuclear bomb seemed to shift views on the end of humanity from randomness, chance or transcendence to human control. War is war, and I don’t try to reason it. I have always found the potential in evil of humans to be perplexing. Then again, the perception of evil is a whole different story.

I think that under certain conditions, scientists feel that there are really no boundaries. I think that they wholeheartedly believed that they were doing what was right when they were building the bomb, and dropping the bomb. Maybe as Boyer points out, they didn’t understand the long-range implications of what they were doing, but I don’t think that a lot of scientists do grasp the implications. William Parsons had said that “I knew the Japs were in for it, but I felt no particular emotion about it.” I don’t know what it would be like to be in his position, activating the bomb that will be responsible for many deaths, but I can certainly see how he was feeling nothing. I think that being in that moment would have been tremendously difficult because he was just following orders and had no other options. Even those who were responsible for building the Manhattan Project weren’t doing it out of hate, but they were doing it out of their desire to protect the country. If we hadn’t built the first bomb, someone else would have, and we could have been the ones at risk. But I guess there is a big difference between building the bomb and dropping the bomb. I have heard the argument that we saved more lives by ending the war with the bomb than if it had been drawn out. I see this as both a political problem and a moral problem that is probably impossible to solve.

I think that given the circumstances during WWII, the creation and use of the atomic bombs was a necessity for the growth in our military weapons. Should they have gone as far as creating something that is capable of destroying an entire country? Perhaps not, but it seems that this was a strong step for our technology to grow and advance. One particular quote from the text caught my attention: “We have to abandon as evil and the source of evil the notion that the individual is not responsible for what is done in war and under orders.” Granted that the individual participating in war knowingly commits murder, does this imply that they are solely responsible for taking a life? This issue raises many moral concerns. The quote incorporates the term “evil,” as if it were a demonic force, and not the term “terrorist.” Granted that when we think of terrorism, we reference terms like: inhumane and morally corrupt. However, does this give an excuse to take one’s life if under orders and if it involves protecting one’s land and lives of others? Then perhaps under these circumstances it does. The dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan was an event that followed the Pearl Harbor attack. This is a cause and effect scenario, we were merely defending our nation.

I think in general the matters of war and moral issues are two things that are mutually exclusive. I think almost every aspect of war really has very little moral value. However, sometimes a form of war is the only way that a country finds satisfaction, protection, and safety of its country and its people. I think often times we use war with the goal of eventually arriving at some sort of world peace. War as a means of getting there seems to be a kind of round about way of getting there however. I think that when weapons that can destroy millions and large areas are involved the only peace that we will really arrive at is, I won't bomb you if you don't bomb me. Not necessarily peace but most likely the closest we will come to when a war may otherwise be in the future. Although in a religious sense war may be a sin it may also be a better alternative to have your own country at war before the country and its people become the victims of mass destruction. However, some sort of mutual agreement would be best, but wouldn't we all like that even though it is highly unlikely. I think inventions like the atomic bomb are great advances in science but not a great invention for the future of our country and other countries alike. Even today though we have taken science possibly too far on a more personal level in regards to the medical advances.

I think one of the issues this article brought up was modern society’s morality. It suggested that, because of war and inventions such as the A bomb, people today are less moral, or rather less human and more robotic- that we have less emotion. But I don’t believe that to be the case. I think it’s just that some people are forced to do things out of the normal range of emotion (normal being based upon emotional circumstances of history) and so to deal with it, they remove themselves emotionally from the situation. Thus, when they try to explain how those actions made them feel, they say they didn’t feel anything. For example, dropping an atomic bomb on a city or being a Nazi in Auschwitz, one would remove themselves mentally out of the situation so they could perform the tasks required of them without feeling the consequences of it. I think if you ask anyone who has been through a really traumatic experience, you will find that they had no immediate emotion because it was simply out of their ability to comprehend what was happening to them. This is reminds me of the movie that recently came out, The Reader with Kate Winslet.
Although where is the emotion of the people ‘on top’ who are ordering their underlings to do the killing and bomb dropping? Why are we doing these things to each other?

Boyer writes about the “menacing implications” due to the use of nuclear weapons by the United States in World War II, and the impact that such a cataclysmic event had on the morality of those involved. However, opponents to the dropping of the bomb fail to recognize the rationality behind the event and lack perspective in the potential implications that not dropping the bomb could have had.

The bomb was used in response to intensifying hostility between Japan and the United States. War was inevitable; more men on both sides would have died had the bombs not been dropped (perhaps even more than the victims of the bombs). So in the case of the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan, what is the moral importance of or difference between an extension of the fighting that had already been occurring in the Pacific for years and dropping two bombs that ended the war six days later?

Had we known in 1945 what we do today about the radiation poisoning, leukemia, and cancer that resulted from exposure to the radiation to the bombs, then I would like to believe that we would have abstained from using the atomic bombs. Regardless, the United States did not equivocate itself to the Nazi atrocities of concentration camps, or to the other countless war atrocities committed by both the Nazis and the Japanese, by dropping the two atomic bombs. The US acted swiftly to try to put an end to a long and costly (both financially and socially) war. We cannot go back in the past to see what would have happened had we not dropped the bombs, but it’s undeniable that war in the Pacific would have continued for an unknown length of time and would have resulted in more casualties on both sides had the atomic bombs not been used.

Some people quoted in this piece seemed to suggest that without religion, we cannot be moral people. This makes me ask the question of where my morals came from. Did I learn them from the church? Or were my parents and the people I was surrounded by more major influences? The obvious answer to me is that I got my moral standards from the people around me. There are people in the world who were brought up as strict followers of their religion and who are now morally deviant, and atheists who follow a strict moral code.
Another question that I asked myself during this reading was why some things are considered amoral and how something can be considered amoral at one time and gradually come to be, if not moral, at least not amoral. For example, dancing and Elvis used to be highly taboo in our culture, but today it is perfectly normal to dance shamelessly in front of people or to enjoy Elvis. How did this change happen?

I don’t think that the use of atomic weapons is ever a good idea. Sure, using them in WWII may have ended the war faster, but the radiation left by using the bomb has affected people for generations. I'm not really sure that the rational used for deploying the bomb was morally unjust. War is a taxing activity on a global scale. The United States acted quickly to end a conflict, and to promote its political interests. However, I would don't understand why two bombs had to be dropped. I would like to believe that using 1 nuke would have been enough to warrant surrender on Japan's part.

The issue of a decline in morality that Boyer talks about is a hard argument to make in my opinion. Morals can be so different from person to person, and the justification for the moral choices in question are more than likely completely rationalized by whomever is making them. Our culture as a whole might need more "no Sayers", but what should they be saying no to? Orders? War? The government? Culture gets pretty sticky when its filled with a lot of no sayers, and often freedoms are lost as a result.

Scientists and even humans, in general, have gotten so used to going to whatever lengths possible to gain knowledge, but in modern times, I don’t think this is always necessarily the right path. Now, more than ever, we need to think about the research we conduct and condone, and this is something new to science. I strongly believe that we humans are capable of a lot more than we have demonstrated up until now, but I’m not sure if testing that limit is something that should be considered. How far will it take us? It’s human nature to want to reach our full potential. But since we have no idea what our full potential is when it comes to science and new (possibly harmful) discoveries, should we even try? Where should we draw the line? It’s hard to say if the bombing of Hiroshima was for the best since we will never know how things might have turned out if it had not, in fact, taken place. Ideally, the lives of innocent people should be spared. But it would be far too idealistic to think that this is always the case, or even to wish it to be so.

Macdonald states that “Evils are rejected only on a superficial, conventional, public-oration and copy-book-maxim plane, while they are accepted or at least temporized with on more fundamental, private levels.” Though he wrote this in 1946, this is still very relevant today. It really reminds me of the situation regarding CIA agents and waterboarding. Though these acts have not dramatically wiped out significant numbers of the population, it is overlooked by many and is seen necessary act of torture. Many people simply say that they are against torture or mass terrorism, but in all reality these feelings are very “superficial.” In essence much of the population, much of the population looks away and thinks the problem will take care of itself. The United State government has the stance that torturing of others will not be tolerated. This should not mean that if anyone in your group performs an act of terror upon us then we have the right to do the same in return. There must be a standard that we stick by, instead of an eye for an eye. I understand that during times of war atrocities will happen. However, one by one the "collective evil" will build to a point of no return once again resulting in the possible mass destruction that was Heroshima.

I disagree with the mention of a decline in morality. The majority of people didn't want the bomb dropped. They majority of people look at it as a mistake today. Stating that saving American lives is a justification in dropping the bomb on Japan is like saying Japan is justified for the Pearl Harbor attacks. They preemptively attacked us at Pearl Harbor because they heard radio broadcasts. Now, does anyone think that Pearl Harbor is justifiable? I don't, I don't think anyone else does. Do you want to know the real reason why people think the dropping of the bomb is justifiable? Well, simply put, we did it. Anything the US does is to spread and defend democracy. Anything anyone does to us is an act of terrorism.

To get to human moral, I don't think dumb mistakes made by world leaders justifies human moral on a whole. I think it just demonstrates the weakness of concentrated power.

Two words can describe Boyer’s chapter Brutally Honest. American society doesn’t want to read things like this chapter in Boyer’s book because they don’t want to think of America as one of the “bad guys”. I totally agree that when it comes to war if someone gives the orders the person who carries out the order doesn’t feel responsible. It is a chain of command and no one feels responsible because everyone got orders from someone. How else can it be done? Mankind will never be totally at peace so war will always be a factor. How can we separate what is morally wrong and what is morally right? I have no idea. As I was reading the article it made me uncomfortable to have to group what the United States did in an act of war to what Hitler did in an act of war. I will never be able to think both of these actions should ever be grouped together but maybe that’s just me refusing to think they are alike.

Nuclear weapons was a step forward in scientific discovery, but a step backwards in the progression of a peaceful existence. i think that humans are born just as mammals in the wild are, they will fight to survive and by any means necessary. The further development of science will eventually lead us down a path which will have cataclysmic results. I don't remember which scientist said it, but earlier in the semester when we were discussing the "Living forever" article, the interviewer predicted that one day a scientist will attempt to create something for the greater good of man, but it will ultimately lead to our downfall. In that text, I think he was referencing some type of "miracle vaccine" or something along the lines of microbiology, but the premise can still be used in the context of nuclear energy and the furtherance of military development. I know that there should be some limits to where science can expand (such as AI or stem cells as an example), but who should be allowed to make those decisions is a mystery in itself.

Nuclear weapons was a step forward in scientific discovery, but a step backwards in the progression of a peaceful existence. i think that humans are born just as mammals in the wild are, they will fight to survive and by any means necessary. The further development of science will eventually lead us down a path which will have cataclysmic results. I don't remember which scientist said it, but earlier in the semester when we were discussing the "Living forever" article, the interviewer predicted that one day a scientist will attempt to create something for the greater good of man, but it will ultimately lead to our downfall. In that text, I think he was referencing some type of "miracle vaccine" or something along the lines of microbiology, but the premise can still be used in the context of nuclear energy and the furtherance of military development. I know that there should be some limits to where science can expand (such as AI or stem cells as an example), but who should be allowed to make those decisions is a mystery in itself.

“The weapon has been created not by the devilish inspiration of some warped genius, but by the arduous labor of thousands of normal men and women working for the safety of their country.” -Henry D. Smyth

Foreign policy, whether one likes it or wants to admit it, is devoid of (what the average person recognizes as) morality in all successful states. Preservation of the state trumps “normal” moral considerations—because with collapse of the state—comes the loss of the very platform on which “normal” morality is built. This notion of preservation of the state, above all else, and by any means necessary, has been rigorously discussed for over half a millennium, starting with the foundations of political science built by Machiavelli. Machiavelli actually addressed this issue over 500 years ago that preserving the best interest of the state will often cause one to disregard their personal morality in favor of this greater good.

I don’t know if the bombs should or shouldn’t have been dropped on Japan, the rhetoric on both sides is strong. What I do know is that the dropping of the bomb doesn’t show degradation of human morality via any newly formed social constructs (liberalism, corporations or compartmentalized scientific endeavors), but rather seems directly inline with brutal actions—given technological capability—taken in the past by states during times of war.

Cant we all just get along?

“The weapon has been created not by the devilish inspiration of some warped genius, but by the arduous labor of thousands of normal men and women working for the safety of their country.” -Henry D. Smyth

Foreign policy, whether one likes it or wants to admit it, is devoid of (what the average person recognizes as) morality in all successful states. Preservation of the state trumps “normal” moral considerations—because with collapse of the state—comes the loss of the very platform on which “normal” morality is built. This notion of preservation of the state, above all else, and by any means necessary, has been rigorously discussed for over half a millennium, starting with the foundations of political science built by Machiavelli. Machiavelli actually addressed this issue over 500 years ago that preserving the best interest of the state will often cause one to disregard their personal morality in favor of this greater good.

I don’t know if the bombs should or shouldn’t have been dropped on Japan, the rhetoric on both sides is strong. What I do know is that the dropping of the bomb doesn’t show degradation of human morality via any newly formed social constructs (liberalism, corporations or compartmentalized scientific endeavors), but rather seems directly inline with brutal actions—given technological capability—taken in the past by states during times of war.

Cant we all just get along?