While the United States of America has been known as the “Land of Opportunities”, one act ruined the lives of many people for decades. On August 6, 1945, the United States landed an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan. Three days later after the bomb hit, the United States attacked the city of Nagasaki with another nuclear weapon. What makes this act unusual in history is that this is the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used in war. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been several people who have had the debate of whether the bombing was morally permissible or impermissible. In order to determine an answer for this question; readers have to be knowledgeable about ethics, research the history leading up to this event, …show more content…
Harris said, “According to the principle of double effect, it is morally permissible to perform an action that has two effects, one good and the other bad, if the following criteria are met” (Harris, pg. 85). In other words in order for an act that is both good and bad to be morally permissible, it needs to follow a four step process. The first step is “the act, considered in itself and apart from its consequences, is good, or at least morally permissible (Harris, pg. 85). What Harris is trying to say is in this first step is questioning whether an act can be considered good if you remove all the consequences of this act. The second step is “the bad effect cannot be avoided if the good effect is to be achieved” (Harris, pg. 85). The meaning of this step is that the reason why the bad act is being performed is because there is no other way of achieving good without doing the action. The third step is ‘The bad effect is not means of producing the good effect but only a side effect” (Harris, pg. 85). This part of the process requires that in order for an action to be morally permissible, the bad effect only occurs as as side effect and not as a planned intention. The person desire of their action is towards the good effect and not the bad effect. The last step in ‘The Principle of Double Effect” is “the criterion of proportionality is satisfied, in that the good effect and the bad effect are more or less equally balanced in importance” (Harris, pg. 85). In order for an act to be fully considered morally permissible, the bad effect can not be more of an importance than a good act. In other words, there has to be more good in this action than bad. If the act does more harm than good, it should not be done in the first
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.
In the midst of World War II, August 1945, the United States unleashed the first ever atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The usage of the atomic bomb was effective, but at the same time devastating and unnecessary. The United States should not have dropped the atomic bomb because it maimed countless of Japanese civilians, caused radiation poisoning whose effects impacted future generations, left both cities in ruins, left citizens homeless, and it was absolutely unmoral for the United States to have created such havoc and chaos in these two cities. Being there on the day Hiroshima was struck by the atomic bomb, junior high student,
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.
One of the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry S. Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy as top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a disastrous weapon. There is overwhelming evidence supporting both sides of the decision, as historians are split in opinion. The United States had been using conventional bombing to try to push Japan over the edge to surrender, but with countless Japanese civilians loyal to their country, invading Japan proved to be more problematic than first thought. Harry S. Truman made the ultimate decision of dropping the atomic bomb in hopes that it would end the war, but the amount of casualties caused by it has historians questioning if it was morally right, “The bomb was unfortunate, but it was the only means to bring Japan to a surrender,” historian Sadao Asada states (Bomb 9). Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable because they would ultimately lead to the end of the war and would demonstrate U.S. supremacy.
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
Good evening ladies and gentlemen tonight we are here to debate the topic that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America was ethically justified in the course of history.
The necessity of the atomic bombs have long been debated in America. Although they did contribute to stopping the war, Americans still wonder if murdering Japanese civilians was a necessary means to an end, or if it could have been avoided. Some people believe that the war would have ended without using the bombs. Others believe they were the sole purpose that the war finally ended. Many people were involved with bringing the bombs to fruition, such as the scientists, the government and military leaders, and the very teams that flew them to their targets. Then the President addressed the situation and American citizens spoke their minds. All of these people had their own thoughts on whether the bombs were needed. In this essay, the opinions on the atomic bomb’s necessity will be reviewed by presenting both the pros and cons from a variety of sources.
The pressing question still lingers: Was the United States justified in using the Atomic Bomb against Japan during WWII? World War II stands as the bloodiest and deadliest war of all time. It involved more than thirty countries and resulted in over fifty million civilian and military deaths. It lasted six years, beginning with Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. As the Allied Powers (mainly the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were in direct conflict with each other, many wonder if the cost of victory was too extreme. In late 1941, the process of creating the world’s first, most deadly weapon began. The production of the first atomic bomb was code named “the Manhattan Project.” After months of production, August 6, 1945, America dropped the “Little Boy” bomb on Hiroshima, wiping out ninety percent of the city. August 9, 1945, just three days after the devastation of the first bomb, America dropped the “Fat Man” bomb on Nagasaki. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary, nor justified in ending World War II. Due to the fact that America targeted heavily civilian populated cities (with limited military value), that Japan was in a position of surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the fact that the U.S. did not give enough time for Japan to process the devastation of the first bomb before the second in Nagasaki shows that America’s decision to drop the atomic bomb was entirely unjustified.
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
The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.
America’s use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities also opened the door to other countries challenging them through their own use of nuclear bombs. Many have criticized that the atomic bomb was an act of “muscle flexing” due to the sheer power and destruction caused by the decision to drop the two bombs. (Nicholls, 67). Not only were these bombs a demonstration of the power that these nuclear weapons had, but they were a testament of power that the United States now held. Never before had a country surrendered in war without first being invaded, so the decision to drop the bomb and Japan's subsequent surrender were extremely significant (Baldwin, 39). These bombings didn’t just impact the Japanese, but the whole world and gave way to
On the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, the United States of America dropped the Atomic Bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of these bombs brought a quick end to World War 2, yet caused extensive damage to the two Japanese cities. There have often been disputes as to whether the USA was justified in the dropping of the atomic bombs because of the damage they caused, not only to the cities, but to the people of Japan as well. Many people believe that the USA should not have dropped the bombs because of the damage they caused, and they also claim that Japan was already defeated. However, Japan did not surrender, and prolonging the war was not an option for America, as it believed it would cause even more casualties, not only to American troops, but to Japan as well. Thus the USA was justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.
Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.
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.
On August 6, 1945, after forty-four months of increasingly brutal fighting in the Pacific, an American B-29 bomber loaded with a devastating new weapon flew in the sky over Hiroshima, Japan waiting for a signal. Minutes later the signal was given, that new weapon, the atomic bomb, was released. Its enormous destructive energy detonated in the sky, killing one hundred thousand Japanese civilians instantly. Three days later, on August 9, 1945, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb over the city of Nagasaki, with similarly devastating results, killing seventy-thousand Japanese citizens. The following week, Japan’s emperor addressed his country over the radio to announce the decision was made to surrender. At that moment World War II had finally come to its dramatic conclusion. Even though some people defend the atomic bombings, because of a weak Japan refusing to give up, the U.S. could’ve chosen a less populated area of Japan to bomb, like the coast to warn the Japanese. Claiming thousands of innocent lives, prove that the U.S. unnecessarily dropped the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.