My outrage isn't that people died, as if it's something that just happened to occur. My outrage is that people were deliberately murdered. The outcome doesn't matter. That action is morally wrong.
Unless your morality is based on the idea that "the ends justify the means." If you believe that, you can justify child rape if it somehow yields good results.
The assertion that the Japanese started the war is A. Morally irrelevant. B. Debatable.
Sorry for the delayed response. Busy day yesterday...
First of all, were those really the president's only two options? Could he not have tried harder to negotiate peace? Could he not have let go of American pride for one minute and conceded defeat?
This absolutely is an ends justify the means argument, because in most circumstances you would say it's wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. You're only saying it was right in this case because it was a necessary action (means) to achieve a specific results (ends).
It is morally irrelevant who started the war. Context doesn't turn morality on its head and make it morally permissable to murder.
And yes, some argue that the US started the war by placing trade restrictions on Japan. That is an act of aggression. True, Japan fired the first shot, but the conflict had begun many years before that. But again, it's morally irrelevant to the matter at hand.
My outrage isn't that people died, as if it's something that just happened to occur. My outrage is that people were deliberately murdered. The outcome doesn't matter. That action is morally wrong.
Unless your morality is based on the idea that "the ends justify the means." If you believe that, you can justify child rape if it somehow yields good results.
The assertion that the Japanese started the war is A. Morally irrelevant. B. Debatable.
.
Sorry for the delayed response. Busy day yesterday...
First of all, were those really the president's only two options? Could he not have tried harder to negotiate peace? Could he not have let go of American pride for one minute and conceded defeat?
This absolutely is an ends justify the means argument, because in most circumstances you would say it's wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. You're only saying it was right in this case because it was a necessary action (means) to achieve a specific results (ends).
It is morally irrelevant who started the war. Context doesn't turn morality on its head and make it morally permissable to murder.
And yes, some argue that the US started the war by placing trade restrictions on Japan. That is an act of aggression. True, Japan fired the first shot, but the conflict had begun many years before that. But again, it's morally irrelevant to the matter at hand.
.