War is one of the most controversial subjects for many. It splits countries in half, turns neighbor against neighbor and divides a family. When discussing if a war is considered moral or not several viewpoints must be evaluated before action is taken.
Someone with the view of absolute pacifist would find dropping the bomb immoral. This viewpoint is defined as seeing all actions of war as immoral. War involves humans doing heinous acts, which if performed in their own countries, would be deemed a crime. A popular quote from Mahatma Gandi fits this view. Gandi states that “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” An absolute pacifist see no reason for violence even if they are provoked.
People with a utilitarian view of war can find war …show more content…
There is nothing that can be done to stop it. In the documentary “Know Your Enemy Japan,” it was revealed that the Japanese had planned on attacking the United States for years. It was only a matter of time before the United States became involved in the war. This being said, World War II was inevitable. The United States joined the war to end it and wanted to do so as quickly as possible. From a realist viewpoint war is inevitable and the bomb dropping was going to happen sooner or later. The dropping of the bombs can be rationalized into something that the leaders knew would …show more content…
The first is last resort. view evaluate war and if it is moral though a list. The action has to fit all seven of them to be considered moral. The war must have a just cause, such as self-defense. It must be waged by a legitimate authority, like a president but not a tyrant or dictator. War must be considered the last line of defense. Before a war begins the groups must meet and discuss the issue in a civil matter. If they have good intentions to restore peace then war is deemed moral. When the nation attacks they must do so that their attack is equal to what they have suffered. Anything greater would involve malicious intent and would not be considered moral. Lastly id must use a moral means. The attack cannot be under handing. The idea is to limit civilian casualties as much as possible.
War valorizers believe that any war is justified. A person with this standpoint would argue that the use of atomic bombs was moral. The Japanese began the war when they bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States ended it. Extremist could argue that it was an act that was equal to a force of nature. Dropping the bombs was nothing more than Social Darwinism being put in place on the battlefield. The weak will die off but the strong will
Someone with the view of absolute pacifist would find dropping the bomb immoral. This viewpoint is defined as seeing all actions of war as immoral. War involves humans doing heinous acts, which if performed in their own countries, would be deemed a crime. A popular quote from Mahatma Gandi fits this view. Gandi states that “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” An absolute pacifist see no reason for violence even if they are provoked.
People with a utilitarian view of war can find war …show more content…
There is nothing that can be done to stop it. In the documentary “Know Your Enemy Japan,” it was revealed that the Japanese had planned on attacking the United States for years. It was only a matter of time before the United States became involved in the war. This being said, World War II was inevitable. The United States joined the war to end it and wanted to do so as quickly as possible. From a realist viewpoint war is inevitable and the bomb dropping was going to happen sooner or later. The dropping of the bombs can be rationalized into something that the leaders knew would …show more content…
The first is last resort. view evaluate war and if it is moral though a list. The action has to fit all seven of them to be considered moral. The war must have a just cause, such as self-defense. It must be waged by a legitimate authority, like a president but not a tyrant or dictator. War must be considered the last line of defense. Before a war begins the groups must meet and discuss the issue in a civil matter. If they have good intentions to restore peace then war is deemed moral. When the nation attacks they must do so that their attack is equal to what they have suffered. Anything greater would involve malicious intent and would not be considered moral. Lastly id must use a moral means. The attack cannot be under handing. The idea is to limit civilian casualties as much as possible.
War valorizers believe that any war is justified. A person with this standpoint would argue that the use of atomic bombs was moral. The Japanese began the war when they bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States ended it. Extremist could argue that it was an act that was equal to a force of nature. Dropping the bombs was nothing more than Social Darwinism being put in place on the battlefield. The weak will die off but the strong will