Utilitarianism and Morality

[Anonymouse]

If you had an argument I would have something to say. Since you don't, thus I feel it would be pointless to add anything further. If you are going to maintain "self-defense" means something other than what it means, the burden is upon you to prove that, not I. The fact that self defense is used to defend oneself against previous aggression and not initiate aggression, makes your analogy that dropping the A bomb on Japan as "self defense" pretty pointless, since dropping the A bomb is tantamount to initiating aggression.

[Darorinag]

If you are going to maintain "self-defense" means something other than what it means, the burden is upon you to prove that, not I.

Actually, since language is a human construct, YOU must prove that self-defense is a word that is exclusive to the definition you are providing.

If you had an argument I would have something to say. Since you don't, thus I feel it would be pointless to add anything further.

Ahh yes, the typical cowardly manner of staying away from an argument.

The fact that self defense is used to defend oneself against previous aggression and not initiate aggression, makes your analogy that dropping the A bomb on Japan as "self defense" pretty pointless, since dropping the A bomb is tantamount to initiating aggression.

You're begging the question here. Plus, self-defense is about defense - it doesn't specify what form of defense it is. Aggression CAN be a form of self-defense.

[Anonymouse]

Random House Websters College Dictionary defines it as the following.

Self defense: n the act of defending ones person or property by physical force.

It is an act that occurs after someone initiates aggression hence we call it "defense", otherwise we call it "violence" or "coercion" or "aggression". You still have nothing new other than appealing to your own ignorance.

[loseyourname]

Random House Websters College Dictionary defines it as the following.

Self defense: n the act of defending ones person or property by physical force.

Notice that it says nothing about retaliation in the face of an act of overt aggression. Let's see what the rest of the definition says. This is from Webster's II (also the college edition):

The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means reasonably necessary.

I would say that Japan being at war with the US constituted a threat. It's probably safe to say that they were no longer a threat to the US mainland at that point, but they were certainly still a threat to US troops and property and possibly US allies on the Pacific Rim. The only caveat that need be maintained in order to call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki an act of self-defense (consistent with the dictionary definition) is that the force involved was reasonable. You might say that it wasn't reasonable, but it certainly resulted in fewer Japanese deaths and less property damage than continued fighting and an eventual invasion of the Japanese islands would have. I might remind you that, even after the dropping of the second bomb, Japanese generals continued to urge death over dishonor and it took the personal intercession of Emperor Hirohito to finally induce surrender.

[Anonymouse]

Notice that it says nothing about retaliation in the face of an act of overt aggression. Let's see what the rest of the definition says. This is from Webster's II (also the college edition):

The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means reasonably necessary.

I would say that Japan being at war with the US constituted a threat. It's probably safe to say that they were no longer a threat to the US mainland at that point, but they were certainly still a threat to US troops and property and possibly US allies on the Pacific Rim. The only caveat that need be maintained in order to call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki an act of self-defense (consistent with the dictionary definition) is that the force involved was reasonable. You might say that it wasn't reasonable, but it certainly resulted in fewer Japanese deaths and less property damage than continued fighting and an eventual invasion of the Japanese islands would have. I might remind you that, even after the dropping of the second bomb, Japanese generals continued to urge death over dishonor and it took the personal intercession of Emperor Hirohito to finally induce surrender.

It does not matter that the dictionary does not say that it's not about retaliation. The word itself suggests action after the fact of someone else initiating aggression.

In the case of Japan, they were defeated militarily at the time, and they had already offered numerous instances of surrendering, the infrastructure destroyed, therefore mitigating any threat they posed to the U.S. Therefore, anyone who argues that the A-bomb was justified is usually a court historian, or someone who hasn't read Ronald Takaki. The fact that America did not accept Japans surrender was to have an excuse to drop the A-Bomb insisting on "unconditional surrender", when in fact, such a thing was never official, and was a slogan not a policy. And before the term "unconditional surrender" the plans were already laid out for the A-bomb making the American public relations stunt look embarrasing, considering they wanted to drop the bomb all along. The U.S. "unconditional surrender" was never policy, even though the attitude entailed that the Japanese must relinquish their emperor. Japan obviously disagreed but was willing to surrender as long as the Emperor was kept. And supposedly that is why the bomb had to drop, but do you know in the end what happened? They accepted Japan's "conditional" surrender, showing once and for all that the "unconditional surrender" hokum was a farce.

Furthermore, another myth that we must blow away right now is that the A bomb was used to save "half a million American lives". That is untrue. Truman stated that phrase, but where did he get the figure? It was stated in his memoirs ten years after the bombing of Hiroshima, when Truman knew if they would invade the Japanese home islands the casualties would have been far fewer than proclaimed because in 1945 truman order the military to calculate the cost of troops that would take to invade Japan. Starting from souther Kyushu and all the way to Tokyo plain the casualties would have been roughly 40,000 and not 500,000, as the myth goes.

So based on the situation of the time, it would be absurd to characterize Japan as being of any threat to America, militarily, ideologically, economically, therefore, the bomb was simply intiating aggression.

[loseyourname]

It does not matter that the dictionary does not say that it's not about retaliation. The word itself suggests action after the fact of someone else initiating aggression.

It matters when you misleadingly quote the dictionary to make a point.

So based on the situation of the time, it would be absurd to characterize Japan as being of any threat to America, militarily, ideologically, economically, therefore, the bomb was simply intiating aggression.

It's very easy to say that sitting on the sidelines over 50 years later, isn't it?

I'd rather not get into a historical discussion here, and I'm sure Dan feels the same. The point being made is not specific to any one event. The point is simply that self-defense can be invoked against a party who threatens you in some way. The threat itself is an act of aggression.

[Anonymouse]

It matters when you misleadingly quote the dictionary to make a point.

That is untrue. The definition is implied, otherwise we would not call it self-defense, since it is precisely action against prior initiation of aggression. There is nothing misleading othe than what you want to make of it.

It's very easy to say that sitting on the sidelines over 50 years later, isn't it?

I'd rather not get into a historical discussion here, and I'm sure Dan feels the same. The point being made is not specific to any one event. The point is simply that self-defense can be invoked against a party who threatens you in some way. The threat itself is an act of aggression.

If you do not want to get into historical discussions, then I suggest you and Dan do not use historical examples to justify your warped version of what self-defense is, since there was no threat at all posed by Japan.