Just War?

[liamconnor]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

Likewise, can a good deity (like YHWH) order the death of innocents (like the Canaanites) with immunity if it is ordered with to avert a great evil or achieve a greater good?

[Divine Insight]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

My answer to this is no. Truman was not justified in dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima.

However, this is clearly just my personal opinion. The problem here is that humans are not all-wise or omniscient, and certainly not omnipotent.

A second problem is that the Japanese were not "evil" people. That whole war was caused because humans suck at diplomacy and meaningful communication.

Likewise, can a good deity (like YHWH) order the death of innocents (like the Canaanites) with immunity if it is ordered with to avert a great evil or achieve a greater good?

There's no comparison here at all.

Not only should YHWH have been far more wise, omniscient and omnipotent to need to resort to such an ignorant unwise "solution" to a problem that he should have never allowed to get as far out of control as it did in the first place. But YHWH also created the Canaanites, and therefore YHWH is totally responsible for how the Canaanites turned out.

Truman didn't create the Japanese. Neither can it be said that the Japanese were "evil".

So I can't even begin to understand why you would make such a comparison between Truman and God. Do you think the USA represents the higher moral ground? Do you think Truman represents the ultimate source of moral perfection? Do you think the Japanese represent "evil"?

I can't imagine why you would compare Truman with a supposedly omniscient all-wise omnipotent God.

I also can't imagine why you would compare the Japanese with the Canaanites.

In fact, what were the Canaanites even doing that was so evil? Supposedly they were sacrificing their very own babies to God in an attempt to appease God.

I would think that if God had half a brain he would have recognized that the Canaanites aren't understanding the situation and since he had created them he should have been able to see that they were seriously lacking in cognitive skills.

That would be his fault. And being the creator God he surely would have been intelligent enough to realize this.

In fact, this very story of how the Biblical God dealt with the Canaanites reveals to us why the Bible cannot be anything more than ridiculous man-made fables. No seriously intelligent God would have ever behaved in such an ignorant manner.

So now we know that this story has to be a totally man-made piece of fiction. Potentially inspired by superstitious and ignorant beliefs.

[Kenisaw]

In fact, what were the Canaanites even doing that was so evil? Supposedly they were sacrificing their very own babies to God in an attempt to appease God.

I would think that if God had half a brain he would have recognized that the Canaanites aren't understanding the situation and since he had created them he should have been able to see that they were seriously lacking in cognitive skills.

Makes me wonder how the Canaanites sacrificing their own kids is worthy of punishment, whilst the Bible god sacrificing his own kid is seen as an act of love...

[marco]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

Churchill eventually regretted the bombing of Dresden. Since decisions are seldom black and white there will always be an element of censure. Hindsight is a wonderful means of condemning man for his imperfections.

Likewise, can a good deity (like YHWH) order the death of innocents (like the Canaanites) with immunity if it is ordered with to avert a great evil or achieve a greater good?

Since a "good deity" is absent from the Bible the question is vaguely academic. God can do what God wants; there is nothing to apply moral censure on him. But we are judging his creators, not a real being, and the being created is undoubtedly wicked in much of what he gets up to. This is not to censure God but to make an observation on a character in a play.

[liamconnor]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

Churchill eventually regretted the bombing of Dresden. Since decisions are seldom black and white there will always be an element of censure. Hindsight is a wonderful means of condemning man for his imperfections.

[/quote]

The OP is not terribly interested in the sentiments of famous leaders; a person can feel bad about doing what we would consider 'right', if so conditioned. Truman felt no regret in his decision to bomb Hiroshima. The OP is about ethics and evaluating ethical acts.

Since a "good deity" is absent from the Bible the question is vaguely academic.

The question is philosophical. If Truman can order the death of non-combatants for a higher cause with impunity, can a beneficent deity not do the same? Even if the character "YHWH" in the Bible is not perfectly good, that does not mean all his actions are therefore evil. I think even you will admit that he is much like the humans who presumably invented him: a mixed bag. Unless you maintain that his concern for the stranger, widow, and orphan have sinister motives...

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

My answer to this is no. Truman was not justified in dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima.

However, this is clearly just my personal opinion. The problem here is that humans are not all-wise or omniscient, and certainly not omnipotent.

[/quote]

That is a strange conclusion. It seems you have admitted that you do not know whether Truman was justified; yet you are quite sure the god of the bible is not?

A second problem is that the Japanese were not "evil" people. That whole war was caused because humans suck at diplomacy and meaningful communication.

Please define "Evil".


The "Japanese" as well is rather a broad statement. I will assume you mean the leaders--the same leaders that bombed Pearl Harbor. Is it your opinion that both sides were quite ready to talk it out, but too shy to do so?

Not only should YHWH have been far more wise, omniscient and omnipotent to need to resort to such an ignorant unwise "solution" to a problem that he should have never allowed to get as far out of control as it did in the first place.

You have already given up this argument above by admitting (humbly) that you lack the competency to judge even another man's moral action. Now you presume to judge an omniscient being's?! Surely the response "This only shows how little you know" suffices?

But YHWH also created the Canaanites, and therefore YHWH is totally responsible for how the Canaanites turned out.

Are you suggesting that YHWH "made" the Canaanites sacrifice their infants in religious rituals?

So I can't even begin to understand why you would make such a comparison between Truman and God.

The OP is about whether violence against non-combatants can be justified. YOu ahve admitted in the case of Truman that you do not know. Yet somehow, in the case of a deity, you do? Perhaps sentiment is intruding upon reason here?

In fact, what were the Canaanites even doing that was so evil? Supposedly they were sacrificing their very own babies to God in an attempt to appease God.

Does "God" = YHWH? From what I read the Canaanites believed in "gods" and had their own names for them and had ways of appeasing them that were condemned by the god of the Hebrews.

I would think that if God had half a brain he would have recognized that the Canaanites aren't understanding the situation and since he had created them he should have been able to see that they were seriously lacking in cognitive skills.

You have already admitted that Truman's judgment is beyond you. you now suddenly have knowledge of what the Canaanites could and could not comprehend?! Am I to understand that the greater the being the more competent you are to grade him?! Perhaps he might respond, "I was there; you were not. I know very well that the majority had no interest in having a conversation. Humanity had willfully plunged itself into savagery. My options were to abandon the world to its selected course, or intervene harshly. You were not there. You do not know."

[Divine Insight]

That is a strange conclusion. It seems you have admitted that you do not know whether Truman was justified; yet you are quite sure the god of the bible is not?

I don't know why you would see this as being strange. The God of the Bible is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. Truman is neither. Therefore Truman, because of his ineptitude may have to resort to desperate and even "unethical" means. Justified solely due to his inability to do any better.

An omniscient omnipotent God could not use ineptitude as an excuse to not do any better.

So why would you think my conclusion is strange?

A second problem is that the Japanese were not "evil" people. That whole war was caused because humans suck at diplomacy and meaningful communication.

Please define "Evil".

Exactly. The Japanese were doing what they believed they had to do. The Americans were doing what they believed they had to do. So how can anyone say that either one of them were "evil".

And why would you automatically assume that Truman held a position of moral high ground?

After all, you are the one who is comparing Truman with your God. Not me.

The "Japanese" as well is rather a broad statement. I will assume you mean the leaders--the same leaders that bombed Pearl Harbor. Is it your opinion that both sides were quite ready to talk it out, but too shy to do so?

They had already failed in terms of getting along long before this. Again an all-wise omniscient omnipotent God has no excuse for not being able to get along with anyone. Especially since he's the one who created them.

Not only should YHWH have been far more wise, omniscient and omnipotent to need to resort to such an ignorant unwise "solution" to a problem that he should have never allowed to get as far out of control as it did in the first place.

You have already given up this argument above by admitting (humbly) that you lack the competency to judge even another man's moral action. Now you presume to judge an omniscient being's?! Surely the response "This only shows how little you know" suffices?

But you are gravely mistaken. I'm not judging any omniscient beings. I'm simply pointing out the fact that if they are truly all-wise, omniscient and omnipotent, then it would be impossible for them not to be able to solve the problem intelligently.

That's not a judgement. It basically follows from the very definitions of All-wise, Omniscient, and omnipotent. If this God has all these abilities then there's no reason he should ever need to go to war with anyone.

But YHWH also created the Canaanites, and therefore YHWH is totally responsible for how the Canaanites turned out.

Are you suggesting that YHWH "made" the Canaanites sacrifice their infants in religious rituals?

No not at all. But if he created the Canaanites, and they were too stupid to even realized that they had rejected God because they were still sacrificing their babies to God in an effort to appease God, then clearly it would be YHWH's fault that the Canaanites are that stupid.

The Canaanites could not possibly be responsible for their own level of intelligence. Only the God who had designed them could be responsible for that.

So there is no excuse for any "Designer God" to have designed stupid humans and then blame them for being stupid.

This story of the Canaanites is one of the many stories that gives the Bible away as being a clearly false collection of very poorly man-made myths.

So I can't even begin to understand why you would make such a comparison between Truman and God.

The OP is about whether violence against non-combatants can be justified. YOu ahve admitted in the case of Truman that you do not know. Yet somehow, in the case of a deity, you do? Perhaps sentiment is intruding upon reason here?

No. I've already explained this. Truman is an inept human. Perhaps Truman believed that by dropping this bomb on Japan he would save millions of American non-combatant citizens lives. In other words, Truman may have had what he believed to be a justification. I could argue against that, but that would just be my opinion against his right?

In the case of an omniscient omnipotent deity there is no room for excuses. So there's no reason to believe that such a deity would ever do such a thing.

Only someone who is ill-equipped to deal with a situation can lay claim to having excuses. An omnipotent God cannot use this as an excuse.

Again, you seem to keep demanding that your omnipotent God must be as inept as Truman.

In fact, what were the Canaanites even doing that was so evil? Supposedly they were sacrificing their very own babies to God in an attempt to appease God.

Does "God" = YHWH? From what I read the Canaanites believed in "gods" and had their own names for them and had ways of appeasing them that were condemned by the god of the Hebrews.

That would require that the Canaanites were ignorant. This could only be the fault of their creator. It's that simple. Believing in false Gods that don't even exist requires that the Canaanites were ignorant in terms of understanding that YHWH was the "ONLY" God that exists.

And that misunderstanding can only be YHWH's fault. Because YHWH would be the only one in a position to clear up the misunderstanding. No one else could possibly be in a position to do that.

I would think that if God had half a brain he would have recognized that the Canaanites aren't understanding the situation and since he had created them he should have been able to see that they were seriously lacking in cognitive skills.

You have already admitted that Truman's judgment is beyond you.

That's not true. I actually said, "My answer to this is no. Truman was not justified in dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima."

That's my personal opinion. And that's all it can be.

Other people may argue that since Truman is an inept human who can't do any better he was just doing what he thought was "right". And so they might give him a pass on that.

Keep in mind, that even in human courts of law a jury needs to find someone "Guilty" of murder. If they can come up with justification for the killing that they feel was warranted, then they find the defendant "Not Guilty".

I've discussed this specific moral question many times with many people, and many people hand Truman a "Not Guilty" verdict based on the idea that he was doing this in self-defense of American.

And now we get into the whole debate about whether self-defense is a warranted verdict?

And even I confess that if Truman actually believed that he had no choice, then at least within his own mind he was acting in "self-defense" for American.

If that's the case, then he "gets off" of any murder charges.

So what about your omnipotent God? Could he legitimately claim to be acting out of "self-defense". Were the Canaanites that big of a threat to him that he feared for his own life?

you now suddenly have knowledge of what the Canaanites could and could not comprehend?!

It should be obvious to everyone that if the Canaanites were sacrificing their own babies to a false God that doesn't even exist they could not possibly know that they were doing this.

So this requires no judgement on my part. Their situation is obvious.

Am I to understand that the greater the being the more competent you are to grade him?!

I'm not "Grading" anyone. The fact that you think I am only shows that you aren't even comprehending the problem here.

Perhaps he might respond, "I was there; you were not. I know very well that the majority had no interest in having a conversation. Humanity had willfully plunged itself into savagery. My options were to abandon the world to its selected course, or intervene harshly. You were not there. You do not know."

If this Biblical God said this he would necessarily be lying.

You can't have the Canaanites thinking that they are appeasing a God that doesn't even exist by sacrificing their babies to it, and pretend as though they knew what they were doing. So that excuse wouldn't even work for the Biblical God.

The only way the excuse you just gave for the Biblical God to work would be if the Canaanites knew FULL WELL, that they had rejected God and refused all that is good.

But then they wouldn't then be sacrificing their babies to a non-existent God. Instead, they would be BELIEVERS in YHWH, who have simply refused to obey him.

But that's NOT the Biblical story. And this is how you can tell that the Bible is a hoax.

Trying to make excuses for the Biblical God necessarily fails because the Canaanites would need to be stupid, not merely rebellious against God. And that comes around full-circle to necessarily being God's fault since God created the Canaanites.

So it's a hopeless hoax. There's no excuse for the Biblical Hoax.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

There is never any excuse for dropping a nuclear bomb on a nation. Truman was well out of order.

[marco]

The OP is not terribly interested in the sentiments of famous leaders; The OP is about ethics and evaluating ethical acts.

The OP can have whatever opinion an OP is capable of having but there is more than one way to consider a question.

Since a "good deity" is absent from the Bible the question is vaguely academic.

The question is philosophical.

Perhaps it wants to be. Looking at a President's action and then making deductions about God isn't too philosophical; quasi theological perhaps.

If Truman can order the death of non-combatants for a higher cause with impunity, can a beneficent deity not do the same?

The question is without meaning. I suppose the plea is: If we can excuse Truman for an act that kills innocents, why can't we excuse God? There is no connection, one with the other. Truman's not acting as a god; God is not acting as a fallible human.

Even if the character "YHWH" in the Bible is not perfectly good, that does not mean all his actions are therefore evil.

I have never heard anyone say that "all" Yahweh's actions are evil.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

There is never any excuse for dropping a nuclear bomb on a nation. Truman was well out of order.

Even if the perceived alternatives were either leaving the Japanese empire intact for an even bloodier war a decade or two down the line, or conventional warfare island to island and city to city condemning Allied POWs and tens of thousands of troops to death (and possible millions of Japanese troops and civilians) until the Emperor finally decided that honour was not as important as all those lives?

Actually from what (little) I've read on the subject the Japanese refusal to surrender may have been due largely to the USSR's initial assurances that they would honour the existing treaties between the two until at least May 1946, leaving Japan hopeful that they could fight on their Pacific front long enough to negotiate a less-unfavourable peace with America. The USSR was apparently stringing them along so their military build-up and Japan's (relative) unpreparedness would produce the best results when they began their massive invasion of Manchura on August 9th, three days after the Hiroshima bombing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2 ... nd_buildup

The Soviet Union's guilt in stringing the Japanese along notwithstanding, arguably America must have known what was about to go down - not least from the Soviet assurances at the Yalta conference - and should have waited another week to gauge Japan's response to the 'sudden' turn of events. On the other hand, arguably Japan had more than enough indication of what was to come (eg. the withdrawal of Soviet embassies on July 24th), and their failure to respond to the Allies' call for unconditional surrender on 26th simply reinforced Truman's perception that they'd defend their territories and mainland to the bitter end.

And then there's the question - if America hadn't pre-emptively shown their willingness to actually pull the trigger - whether they or the USSR would have done so with even more loss of life further down the track.

Without having been the one there and making them, I don't think there's likely to be any easy decisions in war (in fact if I'd been there odds are I would be even more certain that there aren't!), and I don't think the mere fact that this was an unconventional form of warfare is enough to conclusively settle the question. Ultimately what matters to my mind is numbers of lives destroyed, in that and in future decades, and I really have no idea whether or not the bombs were the better or worse options in this case: But the absolutist "never any excuse" is not something I would agree with.