From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 11:40:59 MDT
Barbara Lamar writes:
> > It might be interesting from a bioethical standpoint to put
> > Truman's justification (using the bomb instead of troops)
> > and Hitler's arguments (for eliminating the Jews) side-by-side
> > to see where the similarities and dissimilarities are.
>
> Yes, I think it would be.
Me too.
Without getting too forensic (Truman's justification may even
be Googlable but Hitler's arguments would be harder to find)
one obvious difference is that Truman was aiming at ending a
war he didn't start and he would have had obligations to US
citizens that he did not have to the citizens of Japan.
Truman's motive was different. Had Truman decided not
to use the bomb he would have been responsible for the
consequences of that decision also.
> I agree. I don't consider the things I mentioned above
> (trying to influence the political process and supporting
> research) mere hobbies. They are a matter of life and
> death to me personally, as I am already 53 years old,
> and though I don't suffer from any particular health
> problem at the moment, my odds of dying young are
> at present quite high.
>
> I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was directly
> threatening me or someone I love. I *know* this about
> myself, because I have been in that situation twice. As
> it turned out, I did not have to kill anyone, but I was
> fully prepared to to do if it had been necessary to
> protect myself.
>
> But I find this question extremely disturbing:
>
> > "Are we are willing to sacrifice humanity due to
> > personal or moral repugnance?"
I am not surprised that most people would find this
question disturbing but we must know that some
people are not just theoretically but actually placed
in the position of having to make that call.
But note "sacrifice humanity" can be taken at least
two ways. It could mean sacrifice ones own humanity,
perhaps by attaining some inhuman detachment
where the death of a million is merely a statistic, or it
could mean sacrificing all the human race for a principle.
Perhaps the principle of defending artificial persons
or non homo-sapiens that are sentient.
> In the same way that I avoid dealing with a person
> whom I observe cheating someone else (he may tell
> me, "Look, I'll cheat person X, but I'd never cheat
> you. You're my friend." But there's no assurance
> that I might not later join the set of non-friends), I
> would avoid dealing with a person who is willing to
> toss out his personal code of ethics whenever it
> appears to him to be practical.
I would agree with this were it not for the question how
could you be sure you knew (a) their code of ethics and
(b) whether they were willing to chuck it out. I can think
of scenarios where leaders acting genuinely in accordance
with what would widely be held to be moral principles
would lie or deceive to one or two innocents if it meant
saving the lives of thousands. You or I might be that one
or two innocents that the other has to sacrifice in a nasty
contingent universe where the decider doesn't get to
set up all the conditions of the decision he or she just
gets to decide. Eg. They have to react in real time
to the real time ultimatums set up by another or to fail
to act which is itself something with consequences.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 11:52:50 MDT