One final thought on the post just before this one, in case I didn't make myself quite clear on what I meant by "morally extraordinary" behavior in World War II.
Bret Stephens makes the argument in the posted video that the firebombing of German and Japanese cities - which, it seems, everybody now accepts as morally licit - "hastened" the end of the war.
Well, exactly which bombings? If the earlier acts against non-combatants were moral because they would hasten the war, and presumably save even more lives, then why did we need the later atomic bombs?
Weren't the atomic bombings justified on the grounds that they were "necessary" to end the war? In what sense, if we were already engaged in acts of the same nature, also meant to end the war.
And, as has been argued before, Hiroshima didn't do the trick. Or, did it? No one is really responsible for scientifically pinning down this utilitarian calculus, probably because it cannot be done.
In fact, if atrocities in war are justified on the grounds that they will save more lives later, doesn't that mean that every atrocity, from Genghis Khan on, if done in the name of bringing about peace, was actually morally justified?
These specious arguments make a hash out of the whole notion of just war, and human rights for that matter. As Socrates pointed out, evil is done because it is believed to be good. The question for the American Right in general, and Mr. Stephens in particular, is, "are good intentions all one needs to engage in extraordinary wartime acts?"
No comments:
Post a Comment