it is wrong to force a minority (or an individual) to make a sacrifice in favour of a majority. there's always a choice: people are far too smart to agree to a binary choice of "if we don't do it, the others will" (or some such). also reminds me of the trolley problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
A really interesting exploration of the moral dimensions of the bomb can be found in season 3 episode 8 of Twin Peaks. It’s a terrifying episode that functions almost like an inversion of Malick’s Tree of Life. It’s predictably horrifying in a singularly Lynchian way, but I think worth seeing especially as a counterpoint to Oppenheimer.
Astonishing that the movie doesn't "problematize" this, which used to be a staple of leftist thought (and justifiably so). Consequentialism as an ideology/worldview is a poison in my view and the bomb shows it: even accepting the (dubious) claim that it was justified unter utilitarian reasoning, those who justified it showed their true moral colors by conveniently sneaking in other ends: the testing of the bomb under real-life conditions, and the total surrender by Japan for geopolitical reasons that had nothing to do with ending the war.
This is one of the best pieces I've seen on the moral issues surrounding President Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki 78 years ago this week. I was unaware of the term "consequentialism" in this context until reading your excellent essay. The argument you present strikes me as unassailable, provided one wants to live a moral life. As opposed to an expedient one.
Nor had it occurred to me that Nolan's "Oppenheimer" probably should have been two films instead of one. Thanks for a fascinating and important essay that deserves to be widely read now that Hollywood has asked us to think (as little as possible) on these things again.
Ethics can certainly be tricky/nuanced esp in a world in such a transcendental disarray, as David B Hart writes. His essay “Pia Fraus” is a interesting examination on morality, built around the question: is it ever moral to tell a lie?
The bombing of cities by the US was seen as the act of a coward by the Japanese and of no real consequence.
The number of people killed by the atomic bomb was less than the number of people that were killed by the fire bombing of Tokyo (which, like the fire bombing of Dresden, is an unprosecuted war crime.)
The US atomic bombed the Japanese and not the Germans because "The Germans are more like us."
The Japanese surrendered to the US primarily because Russia was amassing on Russia's east coast preparing to invade and not because of the atomic bomb - the bomb gave them a face-saving reason to surrender.
Scientists believed that there was a real possibility that an atomic bomb blast could "ignite" the atmosphere and end all life on Earth but the US did it anyway.
I planned a few paragraphs about the unjustified (non-atomic) bombings of Japan and Germany, but decided this piece was already too long. I might come back to that point in a later piece.
The comment about the Germans being "more like us" sounds apocryphal - the Germans had already surrendered before the Trinity test (the first detonation of an atomic bomb.)
There are probably many reasons why the Japanese surrendered when they did: the Russian invasion of Manchuria was probably one, but it would be unwise to discount the Allies' control of the air.
Well said! The sixth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
it is wrong to force a minority (or an individual) to make a sacrifice in favour of a majority. there's always a choice: people are far too smart to agree to a binary choice of "if we don't do it, the others will" (or some such). also reminds me of the trolley problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Indeed - the genre of the Trolley problem is a nice comparison, but good grief! How one-sided is that Wikipedia article?
A really interesting exploration of the moral dimensions of the bomb can be found in season 3 episode 8 of Twin Peaks. It’s a terrifying episode that functions almost like an inversion of Malick’s Tree of Life. It’s predictably horrifying in a singularly Lynchian way, but I think worth seeing especially as a counterpoint to Oppenheimer.
Thanks for the tip! I'll look out for that Twin Peaks episode. (Though I still haven't seen Tree of Life!)
Astonishing that the movie doesn't "problematize" this, which used to be a staple of leftist thought (and justifiably so). Consequentialism as an ideology/worldview is a poison in my view and the bomb shows it: even accepting the (dubious) claim that it was justified unter utilitarian reasoning, those who justified it showed their true moral colors by conveniently sneaking in other ends: the testing of the bomb under real-life conditions, and the total surrender by Japan for geopolitical reasons that had nothing to do with ending the war.
Very well said.
The deontological rules for war and peace are different.
Are they? Why? Tell me more.
This is one of the best pieces I've seen on the moral issues surrounding President Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki 78 years ago this week. I was unaware of the term "consequentialism" in this context until reading your excellent essay. The argument you present strikes me as unassailable, provided one wants to live a moral life. As opposed to an expedient one.
Nor had it occurred to me that Nolan's "Oppenheimer" probably should have been two films instead of one. Thanks for a fascinating and important essay that deserves to be widely read now that Hollywood has asked us to think (as little as possible) on these things again.
You are far too kind. Thank you for reading, and thank you for your generous comment!
Ethics can certainly be tricky/nuanced esp in a world in such a transcendental disarray, as David B Hart writes. His essay “Pia Fraus” is a interesting examination on morality, built around the question: is it ever moral to tell a lie?
I'll have a look for that essay - thanks!
Yes, ethics is tricky business indeed. That's why I think it would have been nice if the film had at least explored the question.
The bombing of cities by the US was seen as the act of a coward by the Japanese and of no real consequence.
The number of people killed by the atomic bomb was less than the number of people that were killed by the fire bombing of Tokyo (which, like the fire bombing of Dresden, is an unprosecuted war crime.)
The US atomic bombed the Japanese and not the Germans because "The Germans are more like us."
The Japanese surrendered to the US primarily because Russia was amassing on Russia's east coast preparing to invade and not because of the atomic bomb - the bomb gave them a face-saving reason to surrender.
Scientists believed that there was a real possibility that an atomic bomb blast could "ignite" the atmosphere and end all life on Earth but the US did it anyway.
I planned a few paragraphs about the unjustified (non-atomic) bombings of Japan and Germany, but decided this piece was already too long. I might come back to that point in a later piece.
The comment about the Germans being "more like us" sounds apocryphal - the Germans had already surrendered before the Trinity test (the first detonation of an atomic bomb.)
There are probably many reasons why the Japanese surrendered when they did: the Russian invasion of Manchuria was probably one, but it would be unwise to discount the Allies' control of the air.
Well said! The sixth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Thanks for the comment, Randy! I agree that those responsible should undergo a long period of prayer and repentance.
I would add Terrence Malik’s A Hidden Life as another example of both a visual and moral triumph.
I have heard good things about his work but haven’t seen any of his films. I’ve been looking out for them but they’re hard to find in Australia.