Utilitarianism and Morality

[Darorinag]

Re: Hiroshima:

Some people (in fact, a lot of Americans) claim that the A-bombing of Hiroshima WAS an act of self-defense. So now the question is, was it really? What qualifies as self-defense and what doesn't? What crosses the boundaries of self-defense and enters the realm of retaliation and what doesn't? I don't consider the bombing of Hiroshima an act of self-defense, but some people might argue that it was. And we're seeing another version of this with the "war on terror." Hmm, interesting.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Hiroshima:

Some people (in fact, a lot of Americans) claim that the A-bombing of Hiroshima WAS an act of self-defense. So now the question is, was it really? What qualifies as self-defense and what doesn't? What crosses the boundaries of self-defense and enters the realm of retaliation and what doesn't? I don't consider the bombing of Hiroshima an act of self-defense, but some people might argue that it was. And we're seeing another version of this with the "war on terror." Hmm, interesting.

I have never heard of the claim that it was an act of self-defense. It was clearly to prevent further "American casualties" and to prevent "invading the homeland". Those were the official lines by the military at the time. That was all. Unless you can verify your claims it has no bearing.

[Darorinag]

That's what I'm saying - some people consider "preventing others from invading their homeland" a form of self-defense......

Keep in mind that we're not arguing about the possible intentions of the U.S in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather, we're applying the concept of "greater good," "natural rights," and "self defense" on this example. There is nothing political in this discussion. It's pure philosophy. I am not the least concerned with the political implications of the A-bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I'm talking about the possible philosophical justifications as well as the immorality of the act itself.

[Anonymouse]

That does not make sense. Japan was not invading America proper, and any action to prevent that would be self-defense. Otherwise it is labelled as "saving casualties for invading Japan". You are misunderstanding my point, I was only clarifying for you that your "self-defense" claim was not correct since that was not the reason, but rather to "prevent U.S. casualties" if they had to invade the Japanese home islands, which then ties into the "greater good" nonsense.

[Darorinag]

Japan was not invading America proper, and any action to prevent that would be self-defense.

That's YOUR definition of self-defense. Here's a definition of "self-defense" (and again, definitions DO vary, which further shows that self-defense is not a proper and universal justification for the violation of the natural right to life): "The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary." U.S.A's A-bombing of Japan CAN be considered an act of self-defense (again, I'm not saying I agree with that view, but it's entirely possible that there are people who do hold that view, and it's a valid view, because there is no universal definition of self-defense). Self-defense is not just "you have the right to defend yourself when attacked." Self-defense is a very broad term. You are using a selective definition of self-defense by saying it means "defending oneself from others' attacks." Again, unless you prove that YOUR definition of self-defense is the only valid one, your argument is not valid.

ou are misunderstanding my point, I was only clarifying for you that your "self-defense" claim was not correct since that was not the reason, but rather to "prevent U.S. casualties" if they had to invade the Japanese home islands, which then ties into the "greater good" nonsense.

No, I'm not misunderstanding your point. I'm just disagreeing with it. All I'm saying is that there is more than one definition of self-defense. What you might consider to be "preventing U.S. casualties" another might consider "an act of self-defense." And isn't prevention of death an act of self-defense? Again, you might disagree, but I'm leaning towards that position (not necessarily politically - I disagree with the whole Hiroshima bombing) - the position that prevention of death can be considered self-defense of one's country, after all, the soldiers ARE part of the country.

[Anonymouse]

Now you are falling back on making definitions pliable to suit your warped case of what "self-defense" ought to be, as opposed to what it is. You are clearly misunderstanding my point, although you claim you do not. In order to understand why the "self-defense" hokum cannot apply to the bombing of Japan one must have a historic and political understanding of the war to see that Japan was defeated, therefore it could not have been for "self defense", since it was America that would be attacking the homeland thereby initiating the aggression. Your argument totally lacks anything meaningful.

[Darorinag]

Now you are falling back on making definitions pliable to suit your warped case of what "self-defense" ought to be, as opposed to what it is.

Funny how I was going to say JUST THAT, but did not do it because from what I can see, neither side has provided a proof that there is a universal definition of self-defense. You are battling semantics.

Japan was defeated, therefore it could not have been for "self defense"

It does not matter what it REALLY was. Like I said, I'm not defending the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being a self-defensive act. I am only stating the theoretical, and using a hypothetical situation as an example. I should've made myself clear from the beginning, I guess.

since it was America that would be attacking the homeland thereby initiating the aggression.

It does not matter WHO attacks WHO per se. It matters what the reasons behind them are. And I'm not talking about political deception here; I'm talking about hypothetical situations where there is no deception on the part of the government for bombing Hiroshima. I mentioned before that I'm talking about philosophy rather than practical politics, so I am not analyzing my examples historically and politically, but rather giving hypothetical examples (albeit based on real ones, with slight differences) to test my hypothesis and/or to prove yours wrong.

Your argument totally lacks anything meaningful.

Let's refrain from making such statements, because they are only pseudo-intellectual at best.

[Darorinag]

Strategically speaking (since you want to get into politics and all that), attacking CAN count as self-defense. Sometimes you attack if you know you're not in a favourable position to defend yourself in case you're attacked.

[Anonymouse]

200 words and your argument still lacks anything meaningful. My guess is you made a blunder with your "hypotheticals" and now in order to not appear as such you cover it up by defending your position as "it was only hypothetical and philosophical". Now if you want to talk about hypotheticals, if the Japanese knew ahead of time that there were American planes heading their way, with the intention of dropping the bomb, then they can be justified in shooting down the plane. Other than that, your example has been vague, and blurry withy our manipulation of the definition of "self-defense".

[Darorinag]

200 words and your argument still lacks anything meaningful. My guess is you made a blunder with your "hypotheticals" and now in order to not appear as such you cover it up by defending your position as "it was only hypothetical and philosophical".

You're still using your pseudo-intellectual intimidations. If you have something to say against my argument, do it. Otherwise, I recommend that you take a course or two on how to shut up. I'm not covering up anything. My approach was purely philosophical, as I stated numerous times in this thread.

Now if you want to talk about hypotheticals, if the Japanese knew ahead of time that there were American planes heading their way, with the intention of dropping the bomb, then they can be justified in shooting down the plane.

Reminding you that I'm arguing AGAINST the "justification" that self-defense is right. And exactly for that reason.

Other than that, your example has been vague, and blurry withy our manipulation of the definition of "self-defense".

I'm still waiting for proof that the definition of self-defense is absolute. Unfortunately, just because you think so doesn't make it right. Let me rephrase that: Your holier-than-thou tactics do not work on me.

So as per what you said, "[u]nless you can verify your claims it has no bearing." You have, so far, "verified" none of your claims. And unless you do, it doesn't matter if you're God, I'm still not going to accept it as valid (I don't take anything for granted when it comes to history and/or philosophy).