Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Are you a consequentialist?

Do your decisions involve the accounting for the possible good coming out of an immoral act. For example there are those that justify the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski
Do you believe that the ‘the right action’ is the action which produces the best possible consequences"?

Answer Question
 
adnilm

Asked by adnilm at 12:01 PM on Nov. 16, 2012 in Religious Debate

Level 40 (118,866 Credits)
Answers (27)
  • That was a bad act, that decades later appeared to produce a good result.

    However, this is interesting. I mean, say one could go back in time & take out Hitler as a baby. Killing an infant, is a horrible act but, one that could save thousands of lives and, stop a war from occurring.
    3libras

    Answer by 3libras at 12:38 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • However, this is interesting. I mean, say one could go back in time & take out Hitler as a baby. Killing an infant, is a horrible act but, one that could save thousands of lives and, stop a war from occurring.
    >>
    So you don't subscribe to the idea that all killing is wrong? We could take this like a kazillion different directions, to take out Hitler as a baby would require powers of seeing into the future, that we clearly don't have.
    How about this one? Do you think unmanned drones are immoral and remove us too far from the business of taking lives?
    adnilm

    Comment by adnilm (original poster) at 12:41 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • My father, who landed on the beaches of Normandy, always said that the bombs were dropped just to see if they'd work. I realize this isn't a Hiroshima thread but I found that interesting, coming from a man who was in the thick of WWII.

    This is really, if you think about it, a very deep question. Who determines what is "evil"? It is a religious code? A moral code? A determination made by what is best for society as a whole? Is every major decision involving life, limb and human rights a sort of contained issue that is limited to the situation in which the decision is made?

    We all have our own moral codes, whether they are driven by religion or not. My definition of "evil" may be significantly different than the person next to me.

    Short answer, I have no idea how to answer this question lol
    Mrs_Prissy

    Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 12:42 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • What good came from Hiroshima and could that good have been accomplished a less destructive route? For anything you take the information at hand and if all choices have possible bad outcomes and side effects you choose the one that gets the MOST good with the LEAST amount of damage.
    aeneva

    Answer by aeneva at 12:42 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • The four conditions of just war, according to my official church documents are
    The damage caused by the aggressor nation must be grave;
    All other efforts at peace must be shown unworkable;
    There must be a real prospect of success;
    The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”
    I find this as clear as mud
    adnilm

    Comment by adnilm (original poster) at 12:46 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • if you could kill someone you don't know in order to save your child from being killed, would you? That would bring a positive result from a negative one.....

    luvmygrandbaby

    Answer by luvmygrandbaby at 1:39 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • Preventing China's escalation is the argument given to people, this decision, like all others made by governments, was about money. Debating the ethical impact of events like this is entirely academic, because the ethics being debated had no bearing on the real decision, only in how people make their own peace with it.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:16 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • if you could kill someone you don't know in order to save your child from being killed, would you? That would bring a positive result from a negative one.....
    >>>
    No, the question is...would you? We aren't talking about someone breaking into your house and shooting someone. Self defense is a whole other can o' worms
    adnilm

    Comment by adnilm (original poster) at 2:25 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • I think the bombing was wrong. I do however try to understand it from the perspective of the people living through the events at the time.  It's easy for me to sit back and say it was wrong, I'm not living through WWII, my son isn't being drafted, my family members haven't died, I don't have the images of a destroyed Europe affecting my judgement.  It was wrong, but it's easy to say it now.  I can understand how fear could make it seem necessary at the time, I wouldn't have wanted to be dragged into a war with Japan either.  It really would have felt like the end of the world.

    RyansMom001

    Answer by RyansMom001 at 3:31 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

  • So if those are terrorist attacks what was Perl Harbor then? 

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:21 PM on Nov. 16, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN