|
WWWW on the Bomb, again
Gintas writes:
The Catholic philosophers over at What’s Wrong with the World wring their hands over the “consequentialism” of the atomic bombings:
Jimmy Akin offers us a helpful reminder of why the bombings must be considered gravely immoral from the point of view of natural law theory and Catholic moral theology. It is only fair to acknowledge that many consequentialists would no doubt also condemn the bombings, arguing that better consequences would result overall and in the long run from respect for a rule that forbade such actions. Whatever. What matters is that any consequentialist must allow that it is at least in principle legitimate intentionally to kill the innocent for the sake of a “greater good.” And from the point of view of us reactionary, bigoted, unprogressive natural law theorists and Catholics, that is enough to make consequentialism a depraved doctrine. For it is never, never permissible to do what is intrinsically evil that good may come—not even if you’d feel much happier if you did it, not even if you’ve got some deeply ingrained tendency to want to do it, not even if it will shorten a war and save thousands of lives. Never.
LA replies:
“For it is never, never permissible to do what is intrinsically evil that good may come—not even if you’d feel much happier if you did it, not even if you’ve got some deeply ingrained tendency to want to do it, not even if it will shorten a war and save thousands of lives. Never.”
This is the same reasoning the 4W people used a couple of years ago to argue that if a doomed hijacked airliner were about to crash into the U.S. Capitol, you could not shoot it down to save the Capitol and the thousands of lives on the ground, because it would be immoral to kill the innocent passengers on the plane, even though they were about to die anyway. See this, this, this, and this.
This is not sound moral reasoning in the Catholic intellectual tradition; it is a species of intellectual fanaticism.
- end of initial entry -
James P. writes:
“For it is never, never permissible to do what is intrinsically evil that good may come—not even if you’d feel much happier if you did it, not even if you’ve got some deeply ingrained tendency to want to do it, not even if it will shorten a war and save thousands of lives. Never.”
By this morally imbecilic logic, we could not have fought World War II at all, let alone to achieve a victorious conclusion, despite the fact that the Axis attacked us. In the specific situation that obtained in the summer of 1945, there was literally no military option we could have pursued that would not have been “gravely immoral” according to Akin—which he defines as “inflicting massive damage on the Japanese population.” Atomic bombs would inflict massive damage on the Japanese population; conventional bombing would inflict massive damage on the Japanese population; blockade would inflict massive damage on the Japanese population; invasion would inflict massive damage on the Japanese population. If we “fought” according to these rules, we’d have to pack up our kitbags and go home, perhaps after a multi-year exercise in futility like the “sanctions” against Iraq from 1991-2003. Victory—the unconditional surrender of Japan—would have been morally impermissible. But of course the deliberate purpose of the international left and its American pawns is to construct a set of rules to ensure that the U.S. can never again fight a war effectively.
LA replies:
“the international left and its American pawns…”
And that includes the various American conservative sects which have lost the commonsense and philosophical faculty of seeing things whole, of seeing our civilization whole, of seeing human nature whole, and instead view reality through highly specialized and distorted lenses such as racial/biological reductionism, anti-Semitism, and the hothouse moral reasoning of some of the writers at WWWW.
LA writes:
At The New Beginning, papabear writes:
Lawrence Auster calls himself a traditionalist but defends the atomic bombing of Japan and consequentialism, against Edward Feser. With no Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or moral theology with a significant history to ground it, what sort of traditionalism is it really?
Mr. Auster explains his conservatism in this post, but if he is pursuing truth, isn’t he the ultimate arbiter of whether truth has been attained? But the Catholic Church has received from Christ the authority to teach on Natural Law and morals. He doesn’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church (no doubt he would reject its denunciations of the atomic bombings), but to whom does he turn for assurance that he has received Christ’s teachings in their completeness? How can he defend consequentialism, especially when its development and strength is an effect of liberalism?
[end of post]
I’ve posted this comment:
I had forgotten that the Church has an official position denouncing the use of the A bomb on Japan in World War II. When did it announce this position?
Is it also the Church’s official position that if a doomed hijacked airliner were about to crash into the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. authorities could not shoot it down to save the Capitol and the thousands of lives on the ground, because it would be immoral to kill the innocent passengers on the plane, even though they were about to die anyway? I ask, because the same reasoning that the writers at 4W use to arrive at that position, they also use to denounce the dropping of the A bomb on Japan. Indeed, by the same logic the WWWW writers also argue that if a hijacked airliner with 50 people aboard and armed with an atomic bomb were about to crash into Washington D.C., the U.S. authorities could not shoot it down to save the city and the tens of thousands of people who would be killed by the atomic blast, because it would be immoral to kill the 50 innocent passengers on the plane, even though they were about to die anyway.
I just want to be sure which positions one must have in order to be a traditionalist. I didn’t know that traditionalism requires a society to accept the destruction of a city and the death of tens of thousands of innocent people in order to avoid killing one innocent person who is about to die in any case.
LA adds:
Please note that when Papabear suggests that I am not a traditionalist because of my position on the Bomb, I do not reply, “How dare Papabear define traditionalism and on that basis try to expel me from the traditionalist ranks!” I do not say, “Papabear is a mad tyrant who banishes everyone who disagrees with him!” These of course are the kinds of things the Auster obsessives say about me all the time. Instead, I question Papabear’s definition of traditionalism, and say that I think it’s incorrect. Papabear and I both agree that traditionalism can be defined; we just have different definitions.
And now consider this: the Auster obsessives, all those Oedipally wounded, and therefore vengeful, souls in the right-wing blogosphere who for some reason have fixated on me as their mean, tyrannical father who has crushed their delicate selves, are completely incapable of grasping the simple point I just made.
Ferg writes:
Any other option, whether blockade, invasion, continued firebombing, or large scale conventional bombing and ship to shore bombardment would have resulted in more civilian casualties, not less. Further, blockade and the increased starvation it would have caused would have starved all the allied prisoners first, then the women and children, and only then the military. In fact, the lives of the allied prisoners were already forfeit, and they would have been killed soon anyway if the war had not been brought to a speedy end. Read “Flyboys” by Bradly to get a real view of how allied prisoners were being treated.
Invasion would have doubled the number of allied casualties already suffered and caused even more civilian casualties. Using the Bomb was the only humane thing to do. I knew two vets of the First Marine Division (both gone now) and you could never have convinced them using the bomb was anything but a God send. To the allies and the Japanese.
LA replies:
In a debate with the WWWW writers in 2007, VFR dealt at length—and, to my mind, definitively—with the position that the atomic bombing of Japan was immoral and should have been avoided at all costs:
What “total war” on al Qaeda in Iraq would entail; and the morality of Allied bombing in World War II
The morality of Allied bombing in World War II, cont.
America’s warning to the people of Hiroshima, August 1, 1945
The leafleting of Japan: How many of us knew about it?
The Purloined Leaflets
Well said!
War crime—or blessing? A Japanese admiral agreed with me about the atomic bomb
Christian pacifists seem to be dominant voice at What’s Wrong with the World
A reader disagrees with me on the Bomb
The consequential versus the inconsequential
Why anything short of the unconditional surrender of Japan was out of the question
Pacifism and the Cult of Life
August 10
Van Wijk writes:
The folks over at 4W as much as admit that they are concerned with maintaining an angelic ethical purity without regard for real-world consequences. If the destruction of the West and all they love in this world is the asking price for admission into the next world, so be it. The supreme irony is that they have already benefited enormously from the brutal methods used by past generations of Catholics in order to secure Christendom from the savages. In fact, I’d say they owe their very existence to these methods. If rough men like Hernan Cortes or Charlemagne had shared their sense of righteousness, there’d be no West, no Christendom, and no pedestal from which to issue decrees.
Who is that man astride the horse at the 4W website? The one swinging the mace. One wonders if he ever slayed innocents, or shirked his duty in the face of fanatics.
August 11
Steve R. writes:
I just wanted to let you know that your poor health had been much on my mind and that I have been praying for your recovery.
When you wrote:
And now consider this: the Auster obsessives, all those Oedipally wounded, and therefore vengeful, souls in the right-wing blogosphere who for some reason have fixated on me as their mean, tyrannical father who has crushed their delicate selves, are completely incapable of grasping the simple point I just made.
I felt relieved. For I found it to be of a wit and style in line with a little more healthier version of yourself. So I wasn’t surprised to see you write, a day later, that you were starting to feel better. May it continue and may the king articulator of traditional conservatism on the blogosphere live long and prosper.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 09, 2010 09:42 PM | Send
|