The Play Oppenheimer Follows The Story Of J Robert Oppenheimer

The reason that the atomic bomb was considered to be very effective was because it had the capability to wipe out an entire city, including troops, men, women, and children. Would an act of this capacity be considered as moral? Scholars dispute the morality of Truman’s decision, some arguing it was warranted by Japan’s aggression and refusal to surrender, and other scholars suggesting that the assaults were the moral equivalent of the Nazi holocaust (109). I postulate that to annihilate an entire city of people in one fell swoop is something that neither man nor nation should be able to decide, even if they conceive the other party to be deserving of such a punishment in retribution for their actions.

However, it is difficult to make a case for the ethics in the use of the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it may have been needed to end the war, war, in any manner, is never ethical and all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not have died.

The bombs were considered a winning weapon and blocked out painful questions about the moral consequences of this technology. They refer to America’s actions against Hiroshima pushed them into moral inversion because of their avoidance of moral and historical responsibility. Lifton and Mitchell’s remarks suggest that atomic bombs not only kill instantaneously, but it also harbours deadly generational potentials. Whereas other weapons at the time did not possess such deadly power. Hence, the reality of radiation made it hard for Americans to continue to rationalize this

One major argument for the use of the atomic bomb was that it would save thousands, if not, millions of U.S. and Japanese lives. With a U.S. invasion set for November of 1945, it was predicted that nearly a million U.S. soldiers would be lost, and the entire population of Japan’s main inland would suffer causalities. We believed that thousands of civilian lives were worth our own. The sacrifice of these individuals was worth it all. Where does morality come into play? How does one decide what lives matter and which ones do not? I believe that the atomic bomb was inhumane, more so for the long-term environmental, social, and health effects which took place.

Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. My interpretation of this is the distinction of right and wrong. Everyone has a personal morals, whether it’s through a group, organization, or just the way their parents brought them up. Morals help create an organized society, they are like unwritten laws. There are so many morals out there the government could not make them all laws, so although morals help govern the world they are not actual laws. Without morals the world would be nothing but chaos. Being honest, fair and just, making the world a better place, respecting others, and being open minded are just a few examples.

Before John Hersey’s novel, Hiroshima, Americans viewed Japanese as cruel and heartless people. This warped perspective caused the majority of American citizens to feel complacent about the use of the atomic bomb against civilians. Americans, in many ways, were blinded by their own ignorance to notice the severity of the destruction suffered by not only the city of Hiroshima but, more importantly, the people who lived there. The six testimonies in Hiroshima illustrate the strength and optimistic attitude of the Japanese people. In this essay, I will discuss the feelings towards the ethics surrounding the use of the atomic bomb, next I will look at two testimonies and how their lives

Are morals always right? This was one of the big questions that changed the moral driven society of the late 1800s. At this time many things were changing; settlers were heading west, women were gaining rights, and with that the morals of many people also began to change. At that time, morals played a huge role on the lives of the early settlers, but some of these beliefs didn’t always lead to positive change like many of these people hoped. A large amount of people had very narrow minded ideas of morals, and because people’s actions were extremely moral based, a lot of people in society thought they were making many positive changes, when they were actually doing the opposite. A good example of this is Harriet Bishop. While she

The Importance Of Innocence, A Role Model And A Prejudiced Society In Developing Strong Morals A moral in a way is like a tree. A tree starts life with a seed, that seed grows in to roots. Those roots grow a trunk; then the trunk grows branches with leaves. Like a tree you need many things that grow off each other to build strong morals.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

morality permits each of us a sphere in which to pursue our own plans and goals.

On the grand scale, most people have morals. They come from religion, or how they were raised, however; often times those are formed later in life. Confucius argues, if you have set morals and an honorable way to live as early as possible, you will be able to die without regrets. If more people did this the world would be a kinder place.

Humans are the most complex beings in the universe; at least based on our perception. We have achieved so much, as we have destroyed equally. Created in a world full of unexplored wonders and knowledge, we constantly seek for the true meaning of our wary existence. Those who see past the picture displayed try to find a better understanding of the roles we play, and our importance in terms of coexisting. Existing in a perception of peace, morality as always being the big staple on societies within its grip. To show a higher intellect and understanding of the world, Philosophers throughout the years have presented their views on what they believe to be good or bad. These views often collide as many shape their views on their perception and experiences. Morality remain an illusion and is highly subjective; based on my views of course. One of the many brilliant minds is John Stuart Mill a philosopher that carries the views I have to a considerate satisfaction.

I read three quotes that caught my attention. “Note that moral judgement must be backed by good reasons-if it true that you ought (or might not) to do such-and-such, then there must be a reason why you should (or should not) do it,” (Rachels and Rachels pg.135) Moral judgement is classified in good reasons only. If a good reason is provided than it’s okay to do it. “The idea that moral rules have no exception is hard to defend,” (Rachels and Rachels pg.129) Moral rules are different in many ways, so little can influence the outcome. “At first Truman was reluctant to use the new weapon.” (Rachel and Rachel pg. 126) So, Truman didn’t like the idea of killing off people who were innocent. But with desperate measure, he made his mind up and agree.

However, it is difficult to make a case for the ethics in the use of the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it may have been needed to end the war, war, in any manner, is never ethical and all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not have died.

However, if morality is so important, are the motives behind acting morally really all that significant? According to psychological egoism “every human action is motivated by self interest” (Rachels 64). As humans we are incapable of acting unselfishly. So what makes anyone think we could behave morally for altruistic reasons?