Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[Templar]

Disclaimer, I am Catholic, well I am on here defending Catholicism most of the time. This is my own critique on Catholic teaching.

In Catholic moral principle you cannot commit evil to prevent evil. However Hiroshima proposed a situation very unique. There was an option to end a war that could have killed millions by the targeting of knowingly innocent people to force a surrender.

Catholic morality here, does not permit you to kill any innocent life for any reason, even to save millions, else human dignity is lost and we become a function of utilitarianism.

However, I don't think this dilemma is so easy. Innocent lives probably would have been lost anyways, and maybe in greater number if USA never bombed Hiroshima.

I always struggled with this moment in history. It seems the good thing to do was to force that surrender. To save millions is a great cause, to kill innocents is a terrible means.

Do means justify the end here? I am interested in hearing opinions on the choice to nuke Hiroshima from religious and secular morality perspective. Maybe this will give chance to have a debate not pointed at each other, and we can hear different sides cordially.

Someone pointed out asking if ends justifies means is asking for a consequentialist answer. I’m asking for any solution to the Hiroshima dilemma from various religious ethical systems.

[jimwalton]

Os Guinness, in "The Dust of Death," postulates a just war theory that may speak to your question. I will try to summarize his thoughts so this isn't too long of a post.

Violence is a violation of a human being who stands before God. At the gentlest levels it includes property, belongings, food—inanimate objects. Half way levels include work, leisure, home—our life patterns. High levels violate personality, reputation, security, aspiration, and character. Supremely it involves human life, and we are at Hiroshima.

The Christian view of humanity is that because of sin, violence will necessarily occur. Humans are alienated from God and essentially self-oriented. We are never surprised by violence between humans, as much as we deplore it.

We also know about the ubiquity of reciprocity and retribution. Violence begets violence, by its very nature.

We also know about the unquenchable nature of violence. It will be with us until the end of human history.

Given all of those explanations, Guinness says, violence can never be justified. It is always a violation, and its historic record is abysmally dark and corrupt.

Guinness then, however, speaks of "force." He defines "force" as an ethical mechanism to stem the evil of violence.

1. Provided that there is a legitimate basis for the use of force and a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, a qualified use of force is not only necessary, but justifiable. Since we as Christians pursue truth, justice, and peace, forces is unfortunately sometimes the only way to stop the corruption and evil of violence. In a fallen world, the ideal of legal justice without the exercise of force is naive. "Societies need a police force; a man has the right to defend his wife from assault. A feature of any society that can achieve a measure of freedom within form is that responsibility implies discipline. This is true at the various structural levels of society—in the spheres of the state, business, the community, and the school, respectively."

Some force is necessary to check evil. But two provisos are required: There must be a legitimate basis for and a legitimate exercise of force. No force that does not issue from justice and that is not restrained by justice can achieve justice. Outside this there is only violence. Some force is necessary, but it is imperative to exercise it within the norms of Christian principles and with a due recognition of human nature. The only people responsible enough to exercise true force are the ones who are more realistic about its corrupting and brutalizing effects on their own nature if they overreact to the slightest degree.

2. Provided that there is no compliance with the violent and no condoning of the violence, a qualified understanding of violence is both necessary and justifiable. But at the same time there must be no compliance with the violence nor the slightest condoning of their violence. And we must not use this understanding to smuggle a Christian justification of violence through the back door. There is no more justification for "Christian" violence than for any form of violence.

Either all force is violence, or there is such a thing meeting violence with a greater force whose orientation and intent is to the stopping of evil, violence, and injustice. It is within our parameters as Christians to do what is necessary to stop violence as long as there is (1) a legitimate basis for the use of force and a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, and (2) there is no compliance with the violent and no condoning of the violence.