Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: It must be noted that I said, "I could easily believe", not that I actually do. The reason I bring it up, is that most of the arguments I have seen to date focus on the actual act and appear to ignore what could have happened had the bombs not been dropped. When the possible consequences of not dropping the bombs is raised, the response is, "The ends do not justify the means." My problem with using this as a response is that it raises the question of what your objective is.
The objective was, many say, ending the war, though Truman himself put that in dispute.

www.lewrockwell.com

However, if that is the case, a directly condemnable act of mass murder, directly intended, is evil even if this was the supposed goal. Even his own generals knew the act to be barbaric, Eisenhower and MacArthur called it barbaric and unnecessary.

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.96 The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Trumans own chief of staff, was typical:

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.


LOCKED
Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: It must be noted that I said, "I could easily believe", not that I actually do. The reason I bring it up, is that most of the arguments I have seen to date focus on the actual act and appear to ignore what could have happened had the bombs not been dropped. When the possible consequences of not dropping the bombs is raised, the response is, "The ends do not justify the means." My problem with using this as a response is that it raises the question of what your objective is.
I think the problem is twofold: (a) that you don't understand the principles of ethics and moral theology, and (b) that you are determined to defend and indefensible position.

If you have not studied ethics, that would be a good start. I recommend the book Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.) by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J.,[N.B. you want the reprint of the 2nd edition; later editions were written by a different author who was somewhat less orthodox in his treatment of the subject matter.]

If you have studied ethics, I recommend that you find a more productive argument than attempting to argue against a fundamental principle of the subject matter.

LOCKED
Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: Their other sins are not relevant to the moral analysis of the acts directly related to the sentencing and execution of Christ.

Your sins are not responsible for crucifying Christ: after the original sin, His crucifixion was a given unless all humans were to barred from heaven. The impact of our individual sins is to add to the suffering He experienced prior to His death.

CCC 595-623.
LOCKED
Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: CCC 595-623.
Your point?

LOCKED
Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: I think the problem is twofold: (a) that you don't understand the principles of ethics and moral theology, and (b) that you are determined to defend and indefensible position.

If you have not studied ethics, that would be a good start. I recommend the book Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.) by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J.,[N.B. you want the reprint of the 2nd edition; later editions were written by a different author who was somewhat less orthodox in his treatment of the subject matter.]

If you have studied ethics, I recommend that you find a more productive argument than attempting to argue against a fundamental principle of the subject matter.

To date the view of the Atomic Bomb appears to be that use of Atmoic weaponry is so evil, that no matter what the consequences of not using of the Atomic Bomb, one should not use the Atomic Bomb.

If we examine CCC 2314:
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
What is prohibited is devastating large areas of land and killing its inhabitants. It is because of this, that Atomic Bombs are a problem. However, what do we do if the devastation is guaranteed either there or somewhere else? CCC 2314 falls silent on this question.

I am not arguing against a fundamental principle; I disagree with what appears to be your understanding of it.
LOCKED
Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: Your point?

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392

LOCKED
Aug 7th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said:

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392

Again, Alex, please explain your point. It is not obvious from your citations.
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
The point of invading Japan was to force its complete surrender and and to dismantle its government. The U.S. and its allies had adopted a policy of unconditional surrender of the Axis countries. I think the idea was that Germany, Italy, and Japan were so evil that it was no use negotiating with them. Hitler would ignore treaties, for example; so there was no point in signing a peace treaty with him. Leaving Japan's militaristic, war-mongering government in place was to invite another war with the Japanese in the future.

If one could use the atomic bomb morally to shorten the war, that would have been good. I've wondered if a demonstration of the bomb's power by dropping in the ocean just off the coast of Japan would have impressed the Japanese gov't just as well. At least that would have spared many more lives.
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Isn't that like asking how we feed a town of poor people without killing the millionaire that lives on the hill and taking his goods?

Yes, that was from a "Catholic Answers" explanation on material cooperation with evil.

Whatever act that could have been chosen, that was an objectively evil one, and was so condemned by many as such at the time.
The "many" you refer to, if such existed, were completely muted by the overwhelming pure unadulterated joy at the ending of the war and the complete defeat of the "dirty, sneaky Japs." Because that is what was believed almost universally about the Japanese, especially here in the US and among its allies.

It was later, when the euphoria of victory wore off, that people started questioning the use of the Atom Bombs.
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: The Japanese were expended beyond the ability to continue the war much further after their attack on Pearl Harbour. It was only a matter of short time before they were completely out of fuel and other resources. Japan depends upon imports (even to today) from outlying lands for almost everything on the mainland. There is no way that the Japanese would have attempted any invasion of the USA. It was well known at the time that the Japanese feared marching on US soil due to the general wide-spreaded-ness of firearms in the American home.

The only reason that we made the attack on Japan with the atom bombs was to crush the Japanese after their attack on Pearl Harbour, not as a last ditch effort to end the war. Even if it was to end the war, Catholic doctrine teaches us that the end DOES NOT justify the means.

The Japanese weren't geared up for any further attack past Pearl Harbour...in fact...it's reported that the Pearl Harbour attack was to appear not to eager in the course of its surrender.

I've been to Hiroshima. I've seen evidence of the destruction wrought. My grandfather was nearby where the bombs were dropped in Japan...and he said that the destruction was just plain disgusting and devastating. He said that people were walking around alive with their skin hanging off of them and worse...and that he shared, like many of the Japanese who were hit with the heavy radiation, the death of his thyroid and subsequent radiation related illnesses. He lost all his teeth eventually.

How do you ever justify vaporizing people...and not giving them the chance to have recourse to a priest for last rites??
You are looking from hindsight in your description of the capability of the
Japanese. Even after America dropped the first bomb, the fighting
continued. Then they dropped a second bomb.

Yes, it was a most inhumane way to die, but what about the atrocities the
Japanese performed on their enemies in their many years of war with
different countries.

Japanese did not give any of their victims recourse for a priest. That is not
what war is about.

Fighting a war is not for the faint of heart. We are very lucky there are men
and women who take on that role knowing that doing so may mean they
will loose their own lives or become maimed for the rest of their lives.
They do their jobs to make the rest of us safe.

Your Grandfather went to Japan after the attack and so did my Dad. All
I can say is that Americans on the homeland were more than glad the
brutal years of war were over. How many American families lost
loved ones on the other side of the earth and did not even have a
body to return home to be buried.? The American life changed
drastically because of the war effort.

You owe your whole lifestyle to that generation of Americans who put
their own lives on hold so that future generations would be able to
have the lives that we do today, in freedom.

Two bombs dropped on a small Island cannot be compared to the
devastation done by the Japanese during the war.







LOCKED
Posts 21 - 30 of 189