It is soo hard for our ignorant fellows to comprehend.
[Side note on ignorance: ignorance is lack of knowledge or
not knowing. knowledge is opinion that which is your own or that with which you
concur. that which cannot be opinion cannot be knowledge. Information i.e. USA
nuked Japan in 1945 can be opinion but requires telling, so it can be
information, something of which some can be informed of] taken from Marc Rose.
So i am making this post, so that it will help them dudes
understand, and help make their point clearer to explain how am i lying. It is
awkward singing into a debating group where tons of fellows accuse you of
telling lies and suck at explaining their case. i am making this post out of my
time, so not spamming, copy pasting stuff and trolling is appreciated. Just as
a reminder, a few folks may find the topic of this post "THOUGHT
EXPERIMENT: USA NUKED JAPAN" misleading, however it goes beyond as you
will notice later and i have left the conclusion for the debating folks.
I have tried to assess the USA act of deciding to "nuke
Japan to save its own population" over a thought experiment.
Case:
 |
| Trolley coming with high speed |
Consider you are working in a mine and there is a trolley coming
from track A, there are 10 workers working on track A further on.
You are standing on the platform, where there is a control
box. If you pull the lever the train will divert to track B. between the 10
workers and the train, at the movement there is a junction from which stems the
track B, where 5 peoples are working.
The control box is within your reach, so you can make a decision.
what would that be?
Following are different configuration of the events that can
happen due to the decision made.
i) do nothing: 10 people will die.
ii) pull the lever: 5 people will die.
For i) people can argue that "no doing" is not an
action, so cannot be held responsible for it. As no action has been done. While
one can also say that the importance is to the decision. The decision i.e.
letting a difference of 5 people die.
For ii) people can argue that by pulling the lever they have
saved 5 lives, which otherwise be destroyed.
The argument in ii) give rise to the philosophy of “consequential
moral principle” which dictates that the nature of action is defined by the consequence
of the action i.e. if the consequence is good; the action is moral or good. If the
consequence is bad; the action is bad or immoral.
Which further give rise to the knowledge of consequence
being good or bad? For example in the given case
for i) what if those 10 people who get killed because no
action has been done were a great invertors, remarkable scientist or honest
statesmen ?
for ii) what if those 10 people who are saved were serial killer, drug trafficker or terrorists?
for ii) what if those 10 people who are saved were serial killer, drug trafficker or terrorists?
Conclusion:
I am leaving the conclusion bit for the fellow readers as I promised
earlier. The decision is yours, what was
the right thing for Americans to do on 6th and 9th August
1945?
Was the decision to nuke Japan so that America becomes a
threat and destruction of many sovereign nations moral/right?
OR
Would the decision to let Japan destroy America be a
moral/right decision?
