Today I wrote a paper that touches on this subject of nukes, using the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as an example. In this paper, I was asked to assume that had the bomb not been dropped, then a full invasion would have been necessary, and would have cost millions of lives, including innocent lives. Maybe sometime I will return to this one day, and touch on the fact that not one, but TWO atomic bombs were dropped.
Drop the Bomb?
In my own opinion, dropping the bomb was wrong and immoral. I personally choose to believe that there is no end that can justify killing 200,000 people. War itself is wrong to me. I honestly do not understand how people can measure human lives on a scale next to political issues over resources, land, cultural differences, etc. But the case of this bomb is slightly different than that. The United States dropped the bomb because those in power thought it would cause fewer deaths in the end. Many believe that going to war to stop things like the holocaust, or the terrorist attacks of September 11th is a valid reason to do so. In effect they believe they are causing less suffering, in order to stop greater suffering. I will admit that this seems like a much better reason to go to war than, say, oil. Still, is it truly any more justified? How can we justify sacrificing human lives to save human lives? Aren’t we simply committing the same atrocity as our target? Personally, I believe that is the case. I suppose this is a topic we will discuss when we get to the death penalty, as there already appear to be very big similarities.
I believe Kant would share my personal view. Above all else, Kant valued rationality. Kant believed that one cannot treat another person as a mere means. While there are everyday exceptions, consent is something that Kant was really aiming for. We may order a sandwich from the man at the counter, and use him as a mere means to get the sandwich. The man fully knows his role in this transaction. He is fully aware of what he is doing, consents to it, and participates in it. On the day that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 200,000 people’s lives were ended without their consent. That, in Kant’s view, is a clear case of using them as pure means.
Now I suppose one could argue that the people of Hiroshima may have been casualties in this invasion that supposedly would have occurred if the bomb had not been dropped. While you never asked us to make this specific assumption, one might argue that all 200,000 of those people would have died anyway in the invasion. If indeed every last one of the people killed by the bomb would have died anyway, that seems to put some kind of twist on this case. It is hard for me to figure out what Kant would say to that. I am certain that even if millions of other innocents would have died (like we are asked to assume) then Kant would still not think dropping the bomb was morally justified. But, if all 200,000 of those at Hiroshima were among the dead of the invasion, perhaps this might change our minds. Is dropping the bomb still using those people as mere means?
Imagine you are walking down the street, and you see a runner in the road. As you move closer to examine what he is doing, you realize that he is tying his shoelace. A police officer, who is slightly closer to you, has also noticed this runner. The officer looks down the street, and begins to yell to the runner to move. You look down the street yourself and see a car moving towards the runner at a high rate of speed, and it does not look like the driver is paying any attention or has any intention of stopping. As you glance back at the runner in the road, you see that he is wearing headphones and must not be aware that the police officer is yelling to him. Suddenly, you and the police officer both come to the realization that you must act to save this runner. So, you and the officer both run into the road, but the car is nearly here. Within this split second, you come to a realization. The car is moving too fast, and the officer is moving too slow. As it stand right not, it looks like the officer will reach the runner just in time for both of them to be hit by this car. You yourself are a good 2 feet from behind the officer, and can avoid the car yourself. However, if you were to stretch out your arms and push the officer, you could give him the extra speed and momentum he would need to reach the runner, and push him out of the way. However, if you do this, the officer will still be hit by the car, but the runner in the road will have been pushed out of the way and saved.
In this case, is it right to push the officer? Mill, a strong advocate of utilitarianism, would think that the best choice would be to push the officer, because all that matters is the producing of more or less pain and pleasure. By choosing to push the officer, one less person dies, so for Mill that must be the logical and moral choice. In fact, Mill claims that if you are in this situation, you are obligated to push the officer, because if you did not, by Mill’s view, you would be morally responsible for your inaction, and thus morally responsible for the death of the runner in the road.
In this example, would Kant believe that you would be using the officer as a mere means if you pushed him, and therefore that course of action would be immoral? Perhaps the fact that the officer would have died regardless changes things. Or perhaps this officer is the most dedicated police officer that had ever served in this town, he has no family, and he would have consented to being pushed, if he had known the circumstances and had the time to do so. However, I believe this is still using the officer as a mere means. We cannot simply go around assuming we have the consent of everybody.
While I think aspects of this case can be applied to the Hiroshima one, there is one difference, and this difference is an important one in my opinion. In the car accident example, the agent in question (you) are not the cause of the problem. The person driving the car is the main cause of the problem (though you could argue that tying your shoe in the middle of the road may place a tiny bit of blame on the runner). Whether the bomb was to be dropped or not, the United States (and allied forces in the case of the invasion) is responsible for the deaths in either case. Mill may justify you saving people even if you have to sacrifice some. The rescue 2 example is one such case. You run over one person to save many. However, Mill surely would not declare you a moral person if you were choosing between killing 200,000 people, or millions, and you decided to only kill 200,000, especially if you were not being forced between these two choices. You asked us to assume that if the U.S. did not drop the bomb, then invading would be “necessary” but I simply do not think either choice is acceptable, and it puts a chill down my spine to even consider that Mill would find killing 200,000 people moral, no matter what the alternative was.
It is obvious that Mill would agree with war. It is all about utility for him. If you can keep millions of people from being slaughtered in the holocaust by sacrificing a lesser number of you own soldiers, Mill thinks you should do it. It is a little harder to imagine Kant’s view of war in general. To him it is all about consent. Perhaps Kant would be ok with two all volunteer armies facing off against each other. After all, it appears they gave their consent. However, getting innocent people involved or initiating a draft seems to be using those people as a mere means, and I do not think Kant would agree with that.
One last thing that is hard to even imagine is the long term consequences of these choices. It does not seem to matter as much for Kant, as only the means really matter, and the consequences do not matter too much. However, Mill’s utilitarianism focuses entirely on consequences.
The short term consequence of pushing the officer was saving the runner. But what if there was an eyewitness to the event that saw it from a different angle, and testified that the officer would not have been killed if you had not pushed him? What if, because he was a police officer, you received the maximum sentence of death? Then it would be the officer and you dying, as opposed to the officer and the runner. That is two people either way.
The short term consequence of dropping the bomb may very well be saving millions of lives, but what if in 2045, on the 100th year anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan finally decided the U.S. should have a taste of its own medicine, and dropped an atomic bomb on a major city, or maybe even several major cities, killing millions, perhaps even more people than would have been killed in the invasion, and all of them innocents?
How far into the future do we have to look when we make these decisions? This is a hard question and there is no simple answer. Not only that, but how can we ever be pretentious enough to think we know what the future will hold for each of our decisions?
No comments:
Post a Comment