A morality question? - Page 3

Logical · 12:05 AM

If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?

Additional info at the request of posters. You don't know who is targeted. Your area has not been hit by a Nuke but it was hit by a large bombing incident where 100s died. You will not be directly protecting your family.

Mr Luzcious · 07-05-2007, 02:58 PM

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." - Stanley Milgram

In other words, probably.

**Donger** · 07-05-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?

Additional info at the request of posters. You don't know who is targeted. Your area has not been hit by a Nuke but it was hit by a large bombing incident where 100s died. You will not be directly protecting your family.

Yes.

BucEyedPea · 07-05-2007, 03:52 PM

No, most people are not their govt.
It will only encourage others to want a nuke and thus more use of such weapons. I consider it criminally irresponsible.

At one time I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not since I found out Japan was trying to surrender at which point even that was unecessary to save lives and end that war.

KC Jones · 07-05-2007, 04:18 PM

This conversation reminds me of Ender's Game. Great read for those of you who like sci fi - a classic.

**Donger** · 07-05-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No, most people are not their govt.
It will only encourage others to want a nuke and thus more use of such weapons. I consider it criminally irresponsible.

At one time I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not since I found out Japan was trying to surrender at which point even that was unecessary to save lives and end that war.

Trying to surrender?

KC Jones · 07-05-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Trying to surrender?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

**Donger** · 07-05-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Jones

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Yes, I know. But if one wants to surrender, one just does. The Japanese were trying to negotiate.

**Skip Towne** · 07-05-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, I know. But if one wants to surrender, one just does. The Japanese were trying to negotiate.

And one faction was trying to overthrow the powers in charge so they could fight to the death.

**Donger** · 07-05-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

And one faction was trying to overthrow the powers in charge so they could fight to the death.

I'm not sure exactly to what you are referring, but the Japanese did reject the Potsdam Declaration, which outlined the surrender terms.

BucEyedPea · 07-05-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, I know. But if one wants to surrender, one just does. The Japanese were trying to negotiate.

They were trying to "negotiate" terms of surrender. That's saying the same thing as trying to surrender or end the war on their part.

On June 22,1945 the emperor met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." --wiki They tried to negotiate a peace through the Russians too.

The fanatics attempted a coup d'etat by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace but was quickly crushed on the emperor's order.-- wiki

US wanted "unconditional" surrender without the Emperor ever returning to power. This does not morally warrant nuking civilians wholesale nor when there are attemps at "negotiating" surrender...or whatever semantics one wants to use.

But let's say you're correct, all we had to do was show them the bomb or drop it on a base with no civilians as the link suggests as a demonstration. These bombs were dropped mostly on civilians.

Other than that, this digression is off the subject. I only mentioned it because I don't think these things are warranted unless under extremely rare conditions. The situation per the thread starter and even Japan don't cut it for me unless you want to believe "court historians" or politicians who will justify some of the most criminal acts.

**Skip Towne** · 07-05-2007, 05:29 PM

The little bastards didn't even surrender after the first bomb. We had to show it to them again.

**Donger** · 07-05-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

They were trying to "negotiate" terms of surrender. That's saying the same thing as trying to surrender or end the war on their part.

On June 22,1945 the emperor met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." --wiki They tried to negotiate a peace through the Russians too.

The fanatics attempted a coup d'etat by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace but was quickly crushed on the emperor's order.-- wiki

US wanted "unconditional" surrender without the Emperor ever returning to power. This does not morally warrant nuking civilians wholesale nor when there are attemps at "negotiating" surrender...or whatever semantics one wants to use.

But let's say you're correct, all we had to do was show them the bomb or drop it on a base with no civilians as the link suggests as a demonstration. These bombs were dropped mostly on civilians.

Other than that, this digression is off the subject. I only mentioned it because I don't think these things are warranted unless under extremely rare conditions. The situation per the thread starter and even Japan don't cut it for me unless you want to believe "court historians" or politicians who will justify some of the most criminal acts.

The fact is that the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration. They then accepted it only after being forced to by the emperor, who only acted AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

**HemiEd** · 07-05-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

The little bastards didn't even surrender after the first bomb. We had to show it to them again.

They are going to win in the long run though, the way its looking.

Oh, its a world market, thats right.

Otter · 07-05-2007, 05:39 PM

Let's put things in perspective here, the use of kamikazes, the Bataan Death March, executing, experimenting and torturing American POWs, murdering between 3 and 10 million Chinese, siding with the Nazis and the list goes on and on.

Please, let's not make them out to be noble boy scouts who deserved to be treated like so.

To answer the question, if I put myself in a position where I needed to push the button I'm 99.9% sure I could.

**Skip Towne** · 07-05-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

They are going to win in the long run though, the way its looking.

Oh, its a world market, thats right.

Yes, they are going to win. I was born in June '45 and some of my first toys were little cars from Japan. They were held together by tabs, not screws. When you took them apart it said "Schlitz" on the inside. They are very industrious little fuckers.

07-04-2007, 11:47 PM
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	A morality question? If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it? Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you? Additional info at the request of posters. You don't know who is targeted. Your area has not been hit by a Nuke but it was hit by a large bombing incident where 100s died. You will not be directly protecting your family. Last edited by Logical; 07-05-2007 at 12:05 AM..
Posts: 31,579

07-05-2007, 02:58 PM	#31
Mr Luzcious Orbital Teapot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: a maze of pleasure Casino cash: $10008797	"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." - Stanley Milgram In other words, probably.
Posts: 2,242

07-05-2007, 03:52 PM	#33
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $2909963	No, most people are not their govt. It will only encourage others to want a nuke and thus more use of such weapons. I consider it criminally irresponsible. At one time I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not since I found out Japan was trying to surrender at which point even that was unecessary to save lives and end that war.
Posts: 161,938

07-05-2007, 04:18 PM	#34
KC Jones Genious Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Casino cash: $10012761	This conversation reminds me of Ender's Game. Great read for those of you who like sci fi - a classic. __________________ re-sign: to sign again resign: to withdraw from employment
Posts: 5,366

07-05-2007, 05:29 PM	#41
Skip Towne Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: T-Town Casino cash: $10004900	The little bastards didn't even surrender after the first bomb. We had to show it to them again.
Posts: 69,689