You point to one of the major problems with utilitarianism. When is the outcome the outcome that counts?
As for the end justifying the means in regards to Hiroshima, when the means are that horrible and the ends actually unknown, I'm with Elisabeth Anscombe and her boiled baby. Historically, of course, this 'saving lives' end was never the real reason for dropping the bombs.
Ursula, boiling no babies on the North Bay of Lake Nipissing (where it's a lovely 25 degrees C.) Mike Geary wrote:
What was the outcome? Several hundred thousand Iraqis killed, 5000 + Americans killed, oven a trillion dollars thrown to the wind, our national ideals besmirched through torture and extraordinary renditions, assassinations, our prestige in the world seriously diminished. Is an imposed "democracy" in Iraq worth all that? The outcome has been immensely harmful to the US and Iraq and has fueled Islamic terrorism probably for years to come. I can't imagine what could make the war in Iraq a morally right thing. If you had asked me about dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, I'd probably say, off the top of my head, "yes", because it possibly saved more lives than it took. Don't know, of course, but none of these decisions are obvious, especially not in the midst of them.Mike Geary MemphisOn Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:You sure you don't want to rethink that? If democracy blossoms in Iraq, will BabyBush have done the morally right thing? atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Outcome is the only thing that makes something morally wrong [or right?].
