Utilitarian And Kantian Principles - Viewpoints On The Hiroshima And Nagasaki Bombing

Utilitarian and Kantian Principles – Viewpoints on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing

The Kantian and utilitarian ethical theories offer varying perspectives on determining right or wrong. On the one hand, the Kantian theory is based on treating humanity as an end instead of a means. The Kantian moral theory is against using humanity as a means since that would amount to using them for schemes they do not consent to. Kantians believe that human life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life. On the other hand, utilitarians believe that humans should engage in actions that bring the greatest good. If decisions are based on the utilitarian moral theory, human lives may be sacrificed in pursuit of an objective. Besides, an innocent party may be unjustly punished if that is necessary to bring a sufficiently good effect.

Utilitarian Perspective

Utilitarians defend Truman’s attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the arguments utilitarians present is that the war was justified as an end, regardless of the loss of lives. Prior to the attack, the US had solid intelligence that Japan was planning to escalate based on their latest actions. Japan had refused to surrender unconditionally, insisting on the continuation of military trials, which would pose a risk to world peace. Hence, the defenders of the attack believe that the action went a long way to saving millions of lives.

Another utilitarian argument used to defend the attack on Hiroshima is that it had to happen to achieve a greater good. This position aligns with the utilitarian perspective that avers that actions are justifiable if they bring the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness (Rachels and Rachels 118). Before the attack, the US had one primary objective: the complete surrender of Japan. The US would achieve this objective either through bombing or a ground invasion by US soldiers. Having considered the consequences of a ground invasion, the US realized that millions of US soldiers would die in the process, and probably many more on the Japanese side. The outcome of a ground invasion would have been bloodier than the Normandy invasion (Rachels and Rachels 133). The Truman administration was also concerned about the negative side effects the war would have brought in terms of famine and continued bombing in Japan, as more bombings had already occurred in Tokyo. Therefore, Truman settled on dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as this would not be as devastating as a ground invasion would have been.

Kantian Perspective

On the other hand, Kant would disapprove of Truman’s Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing, as Truman’s will was not necessarily good for all. Kant argues that human lives are valuable above all price. He argues that human lives are irreplaceable; hence, they should be protected regardless of the cost (Sinha 19). According to Kant, if a child dies and another is born to the same family, the cost of losing the first child cannot be compensated. Kant’s overemphasis on human lives is based on the perspective that mere things can be replaced, but not human lives. Therefore, people should possess the dignity that other things lack and preserve each other’s lives because they are rational.

Firstly, Kant would argue that sacrificing thousands of Japanese as a means to achieve a desired outcome is morally impermissible. By attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman neglected the victims, failing to offer them the basic dignity that humans are expected to grant each other. It is worth noting that Kant also talks about the influence of consent. If the US were to align with the consent principle, then a ground attack would be justified because that would only hurt the Japanese soldiers who were willing to confront them.

Elizabeth Anscombe’s Criticism of Truman

In her pamphlet, Elizabeth Anscombe describes Truman as a murderer, having ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Elizabeth is particularly concerned by Truman’s justification that the bombings hastened the end of the war. Elizabeth argues that there is no other way to describe people who kill others as a means to an end apart from what they really are—murderers (Rachels and Rachels 135). On the argument that the attack saved more lives, she presents a striking analogy; if someone is asked to boil a baby to save thousands or millions of lives, a rational person would save the baby. Elizabeth’s example of the realities of the bombing outcomes is anything to go by. People were literally boiled, as evidenced by multitudes who died in rivers, reservoirs, and cisterns as they attempted to escape from the heat, albeit in vain. Anscombe’s argument is that some things should not be done, no matter what.

Conclusion

In summary, utilitarianism and Kantianism, two rival moral theories, offer varying viewpoints regarding Truman’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. On the one hand, the utilitarian principle avers that people should engage in actions that bring the greatest good; hence, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was justified because it averted even more serious consequences. On the other hand, the Kantian moral theory disapproves of the attack because it amounted to sacrificing human lives as a means to an end.

Works Cited

Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 9th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

Sinha, Navin. “Human Dignity- A Kantian Perspective.” Interwoven: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Navrachana University, vol. 3, no. 2, Nov. 2020, nuv.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/pdf/interwoven/issue/Volume3_13.pdf.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question