Consequentialism, and the Justifying the A-Bomb

Like most American kids, I learned about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in elementary school history class.  I was shown the image of the mushroom cloud and perhaps a few destroyed buildings.  But then I was shown the fanfare in New York City celebrating the surrender of the Japanese and the closing of World War II.

Regarding the morality of dropping the atomic bomb, I learned – and wholeheartedly believed – the following argument:

“Yes, the atomic bomb killed tens of thousands of people.  That is the horror of war.  However, the other option was to invade Japan.  That would have resulted in a brutal fight against a determined enemy which would likely cost millions of human lives.  So which do you choose?  The option that kills tens of thousands, or the one that kills millions?”

The obvious answer is the one that involves less death.  Thus the dropping of the atomic bomb, while unpleasant and sad, was a justifiable and necessary event that saved millions of lives.

But as I grew in my understanding of the Christian faith, I had to ask myself… is that true?

Means and Ends:

A basic understanding of ethics breaks down an action into “Means” and the “Ends”.  The “End” is the desired outcome.  The “Means” is the way you go about accomplishing it.

For instance... Say I want to acquire some money.  So I get a job.  The “End” is acquisition of money.  The “Means” is lawful employment.

For an action to be moral, both the Means and the Ends have to be moral.  Saint Paul indicates this in his letter to the Romans.  People were accusing him of saying you can do evil for the sake of good.  He took great offense at that, saying:

“'And why not do evil that good may come?' - As some people slanderously charge us with saying.  Their condemnation is just.” - Romans 3:8

Thus, it is a Christian principle that you cannot do evil that good may come of it.  The Ends cannot justify the Means. We cannot be consequentialists.

How does this apply to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Well, the “End” was the surrender of the Japanese and the conclusion of the war.  (So far, so good.)   The Means was... nuking civilian population centers.

Twice.

Consequences of Consequentialism:

Let’s change the subject a bit to make things more clear.

When I call to mind some common arguments for the legality of abortion, here’s what they sound like:

• “Some women are desperately poor, and they need abortion to keep them from being out on the street.”

• “The world is getting overpopulated, so we need abortion to prevent mass starvation.”

• “Some women are pregnant due to sexual assault, and abortion will help them heal emotionally.”

• "Some women have dangerous pregnancies, and abortion is necessary to save their lives!"

What do all of these have in common?  They are consequentialist arguments.  That is, they rely on the idea that the End can justify the Means.

And how do we respond as Christians?  Well, we say there are certain things which cannot be done, even if you have good reason.  Among them is intentionally killing an innocent child to achieve your goals.

However, what happens to our argument if we suddenly turn around and say:

“BTW, nuking children is justified if you’re trying to Save American Lives”

Well, now we’ve given away our whole argument against abortion.  Hell, it gives away the whole concept of a “war crime”.  Because now we’ve said:

“Intentionally killing innocent children can be justified in the right circumstances.”

So now the debate isn’t about the absolutely impermissibility of killing children.  We get reduced to bargaining about the circumstances under which it is allowed.

And for what?  So we can be true patriots?

False Dichotomies:

So the next thought is:

“What then?  Look at the alternative!  Should we have invaded and endured the endless fighting and the deaths of millions?”

But then I wondered, were those really the only two options?  Isn’t this a false dichotomy?  One suggestion which was brought up at the time was a demonstration of the A-Bomb on an unpopulated area.  That idea got rejected.  But what if it hadn’t?  What if it had worked?

Who knows.  I cannot say for certain that any other particular option would have been successful, but I can say there were other options.

Options which were more ethical than nuking civilians.


Forbidden Fruit:

It is often said that “war is hell” – and so whatever gets us out of war is worth the cost.  But as our first parents found out, eating the consequentialist fruit was not worth the side-effects. 

War may be hellish… but hell is still hell. And what good is it to save American Lives if we wind up there?  As a certain Jew once said:

“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?”

I’ve got no judgement for the people who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They likely thought there was no other way.  However – with malice toward none – nuking those cities was wrong.