Ethical Dilemmas: The Decision To Drop The Atomic Bomb

In the article “What Makes Right Acts Right” by W.D Ross, he debates the about idea of duties and how humans in general understand if their actions are correct. Ross mentions that humans do not deliberately execute their duties because of the consequences resulting from those duties. Rather, they perform those duties because of an innate form of common sense that humans possess inside of themselves. One example of this is the act of fulfilling a promise that an individual made to themselves or others not because of the end results but because of their sense of “duty.” Ross’s moral theory can be thought of as a compromise between utilitarianism and Kantianiasm. Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of:

The United States and Japan fought in World War II during 1941 to 1945. Japan planned to expand their land and gain resources- which led them to invade China whom was an ally of the U.S. In result, the United States cut off the supply of oil to Japan. On December 7th 1941, Japan’s air force did a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor because that is where their military base is located. Afterwards, the United States declared war on Japan, and joined allies against the axis powers. The United States’ use of the atomic bombs is justified because it saved American lives; Japan was given fair warning, and their aggressions towards the U.S.

President Harry Truman gave an executive order in 1945 to drop to atomic bombs in popular downtown cities in Japan. With the guidance of many scientists and political leaders President Truman made the extremely tough decision to drop the bombs. After listening to arguments from both sides President Truman came to the conclusion that dropping bombs would be the best thing to do for this war. It would also show that the United States had an extreme military power. Many American politicians were for the idea of dropping the bomb, because they believed that it was the only way to end the war and get Japan to surrender. Giving them other options at this point seemed useless. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed when the bombs

Harry S. Truman once said, “Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you.” In World War II, that is exactly what he did. While Japan was breaking treaties and fighting with allied countries, the United States was developing a powerful weapon that would cripple Japan and end World War II. This weapon was called the atomic bomb. After it was fully developed and tested, Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop this deadly weapon on two cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Harry S. Truman was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan because he saved American lives, crippled Japan's remaining resource cities, forcing them to surrender, and established dominance as a world power.

I believe Truman was right in his actions of commencing the dropping of weapons of mass destruction against the Empire of Japan. While morally it may have been carried out in a better way, that's a debate for a different time. There are three reasons I would like to clarify to show why I believe it was the right decision.

In an attempt to get Japan to surrender to the Allies, in August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the nation. The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the second on Nagasaki. Although these bombs did contribute to Japan’s surrender and the end of the war, the use of this atomic weapon was an irrational and horrible decision. The United States should have abstained from using the two atomic bombs on Japan for the sake of civilian lives and possible alternatives to their decision. These bombs not only had detrimental effects on Japan, they also led to an arms race amongst several nations.

With many American people questioning if the bomb was needed to end the war, America released an article stating that the bomb was a necessary evil. But, many still wonder whether or not America should have dropped the atomic bomb. When looking at both Japan and America’s sides during the Pacific War, it is clear that President Truman should not have made the decision to drop the bomb.

Theoretically of course, what if a country was to develop a weapon strong enough to completely disintegrate cities and all the people living in it? Coincidently, the United states discovered a bomb that did exactly that and ended up thrusting the world into a new era of weaponized technology towards the end of World War II. Countries from this point on became wary of opposing the United States, aware of the power they possessed, especially since the US had already used this weapon on Japan to end the war. However, the Japanese were committed to fight to the bitter end of the war and see it all the way through, regardless of the fact that the United States demanded unconditional surrender from the small country of islands. This further emphasizes that since the Japanese were not simply going to give up, Truman came to the conclusion that in order to save millions of lives, he had to take thousands. President Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to warn the world about the new found power of the United States, force an unconditional surrender of the Japanese, and save millions of lives.

Evaluate and discuss President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, which ultimately killed ten of thousands of Japanese citizens. I researched the different views that people have dealt with this subject.

As all the world has known, the biggest atomic bomb in warfare history by the end of World War 2 is the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that hit on August 9th, 1945 by the direct order of our 33rd president of The United States Of America; Harry S. Truman. He thought this bomb would bring a close ending of the war (World War 2) and it definitely did but it was too much to handle afterwards when it hit. There was no choice for Truman because there was no other way to bring the war into a close. It was the last call, but they didn’t realize that after they released the bomb, it was hard to decide whether it was a mistake or the right decision. The bomb killed innocent people of 199,000 (plus more). The atomic weapon destroyed most parts of the a Japanese town of Nagasaki and Hiroshima .

The life of Frederick: Aristotle vs. Stoicism In theory we all strive to have the same form of life that Frederick had. A nice house, car, and a family. The strive for excellence is a key trait in what makes us human. We want to be good at everything and

Aristotle understands happiness to be the central purpose of human life and a goal in itself, which we should strive for. However, for Aristotle, happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue. In order to live a happy life, one must fulfill a wide variety of conditions. In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents his idea that moral excellence and virtue are the focus of reflection on ethics. His stance is that virtue is an essential feature of human happiness and is necessary to live the “good life”. However, an overarching theme found in his text is that

If we accept these as the principles underlying ethical review, then it follows that ethical review must be applied to all types of research, beyond just those which contain human or animal participants. This is because the aim of a research project can be harmful to mankind even if that project has no need of human or animal participation in its testing.

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy can be further evaluated through the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is based upon Kant’s idea that morality is derived from rationality and all moral judgments are rationally supported. The Categorical Imperative is an absolute nonnegotiable universal moral that holds up regardless of context and circumstance.