Two posts:
But granting all this, I don’t see any acceptable theory of justice in war that allows for what we did to those two Japanese cities. If you want to scrap jus in bello entirely, and argue that in war all moral rules must be suspended, and the only goal should be to win while minimizing the overall loss of life (or the overall loss of life on your own side) – well, then you can certainly justify the atomic bombing of two huge civilian populations. The trouble is that you can justify almost anything else. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally acceptable, because our intentions were noble and we thought the ends justified the awful means, then what wartime act would not be justifiable? If in the pursuit of victory, it’s morally permissible to slaughter enemy civilians on a grand scale, then what wartime behavior would be impermissible?
Today is not only the feast of Edith Stein, it is also the 60th anniversary of the atom bombing of Nagasaki. We patriotic Americans aren’t supposed to question the morality of what our government did in that war, but we’re going to do it anyway
Read Previous Post