1. In the summer of 1945, a meeting was held in Washington that dramatically affected
the course of history. It seems that the Americans and their allies were facing an ethical
decision of the highest order: whether or not to use the recently developed atomic bomb
on Japan. The world's greatest scientists were divided on the issue. Some argued that the
bomb could not be considered a legitimate weapon of war because its use could not be
justified on moral grounds. Others claimed that the ethics of war and the ethics of peace
are different and that once the fighting starts we must expect a suspension of many ethical
principles and practices until the fighting stops.
The first position was articulated by a member of the Supreme Allied Command, a Navy
Admiral whose position was shared by many of the people at the meeting. His position
was that, while many atrocities occur in wars, the individual soldier is bound by a large
number of duties, responsibilities and values. In short a soldier must have certain
character,with clearly identifiable character traits or virtues or he or she ceases to be a
soldier. The Admiral pointed to the behaviour of SS officers and commanders whose only
function was to round up and kill unarmed civilians. Surely, these people could not be
considered to possess the ethical character required of soldiers. Because dropping the
atom bomb would effectively mean the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of
civilians, the admiral concluded that it would be unethical military behaviour.
Another position was offered by an Air Force General, who had been a first hand
observer of both the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. He pointed out that the
behaviour (and even the character) of the Japanese soldiers and civilians was very
different than, for example, that of the German soldiers and civilians that he had
encountered. He said that as the Allies were getting closer and closer to Germany, the
German soldiers were surrendering in greater and greater numbers. They sensed the war
was ending, and continuing to fight made no sense.
Exactly the opposite was happening as the Allies were getting closer to Japan. As the
Allies would liberate islands previously held by the Japanese, large numbers of Japanese
soldiers and civilians would commit suicide rather than be captured alive. He argued that
if they decided not to use the bomb, and attempted to land Allied soldiers on Japan itself;
the Japanese people would commit collective suicide, fighting to the death even to the
point of annihilation. Moreover the losses to allied armies in a situation like this would
also escalate dramatically. He argued, on utilitarian grounds that the benefits of using
thebomboutweighed the negative effects, and for this reason the use of the bomb was
ethically acceptable.
A third position centered on the ethical principles that were involved in dropping the
bomb. This position said that there are broader principles at stake than had been discussed
by either the Admiral or the General. But this principled approach supported the idea of
not dropping the bomb, and thus, seemed to support the Admiral's position against the
General. Remember the General claimed that, in the end, fewer disadvantages would
result in dropping the bomb than in continuing to: fight a "conventional" war with the
Japanese. The approach based on principles, goes like this; it is always wrong to kill civilians
in

2. the hope that by killing them you will produce a better situation in the future. After all, no
one knows the future. What happens if dropping the bomb on Japan becomes the first step
in a huge arms race, where nations attempt to build greater and greater arsenals in the
hope of being in the position that we (allies) are in now. This could end in unimaginable
consequences for humanity. Thus, the idea that dropping the bomb on Japan will end in
fewer casualties and a generally better situation for all parties cannot be shown to be true.
Act Utilitarianism:when making a decision you must choose the action that will bring
about overall happiness for all concerned.
Solution: Yes we will drop the bomb. As Generals of an Army we are concerned with the
overall happiness of our people (soldiers) and to attempt to land on Japanese soil would
result in more lives being lost which would create further unhappiness at home because more
families will be hurt by losing their loved one. Dropping the bomb also brings about the
greater good by ending the war sooner. Yes, some will have to be sacrificed but this is the
price of war and the greater good which is preventing more, unnecessary loss of life.
Solution: No we will not drop the bomb on civilians. As Generals of an Army who is now
winning the war and that the war is coming to a close the overall happiness of humanity
outweighs the necessity of killing innocent civilians who have already lost a lot by having
their homeland at war, loved-ones killed and now facing inevitable defeat. Now we must
consider the consequences of using such a destructive weapon and how that can shape
political discourse in the future.
Rule Utilitarianism: when making a decision you must create a corresponding rule to
the possible choice that would be followed in every situation in society
Choice 1: Yes we will drop the bomb
Rule 1: Generals of Armies are in charge to win wars against their enemies regardless of
status (soldier or civilian)
Choice 2: No we will not drop the bomb
Rule 2: Generals of Armies cannot commit crimes against civilians
Rule utilitarianism states that before choosing which choice you are going to use
imagine each rule being followed in society and how would society be if we were to
follow this rule all the time?
Choice number 2 is better than choice number 1 as it would be horrific if every
soldier/general/army acted under the conduct that slaughter of everyone is ok

3. Deontology: The rightness or wrongness of your decision is located in your
responsibilities and obligations and not in the end result (consequence)
Solution: Yes drop the bomb. As commanders of an Army we have the obligation to keep as
many of our soldiers safe and not put them in harm’s way if it not needed.
Solution: No we do not drop the bomb on civilians. As commanders of an Army we have an
obligation to keep our soldiers safe in addition to minimizing the impact of harm war creates
on civilians regardless of which side of the war they are on.
Which obligation do you follow? Immanuel Kant said that there are 3 maxims, or rules
to help guide you to follow your correct duty
Kant’s Maxims (Rules)
1. If someone were in your situation and they would do something similar as you have than it
is ok
- Retaliation often happens in society… you have harmed me so I will harm you
2. Do not use people for your gain/advantage
- in this situation the Generals of the army are using civilians to end the war and prevent
harm from done unto their soldiers
3. Be the change you wish to see in the world
- is using nuclear weapons, twice, on civilians the morally right thing to do?
Based on these rules it becomes difficult to determine which rule to follow. Kant stated that
you should choose the rule (Maxim) that is most observed in the world and maxim 1 is most
observed.
Therefore a deontologist would argue that dropping the bomb is most appropriate course of
action
Natural Law Theory:You cannot violate any of the 4 basic values every human being
considers to be important: procreation, knowledge, sociability, and life.
If we drop the bomb we are killing civilians and taking life and are violating one of the 4
basic values. However, it is ok to violate any of these 4 values if we can uphold the doctrine
of double effect:

4. 1. Bad result is proportionate to the good
- if we drop the bomb we can end the war sooner and we will not be putting our soldiers at
risk
OR
- if we think of long-term consequences of nuclear technology the bad result is not in
proportion to the good
2. The bad result was not intended or chosen
- We did not start this war
OR
- The commanding leaders had the opportunity to demonstrate the power and they decided
not to do that so the bad result was chosen (especially for the 2nd
bomb)
3. It is not possible to bring about a good result without the bad
- This area was not explored as a possible option as the Allie Commanders did not take the
suggestion of the Scientists to demonstrate the power and give Japan an opportunity to
surrender
Because we cannot check off all 3 on the doctrine of double effect we cannot drop the
bomb on civilians.
Character/Virtue Ethics: The morality of your action is based on previous actions
For character/virtue ethics you need to discuss the soul described by Plato. The soul has 3
components and the highest is the intellect which is the part of the soul that measures,
calculates and reasons. Calculating the cost of Allied soldiers’ lives that would be killed if
the commanders decided not to drop the bomb is unnecessary but it is also unnecessary to
destroy civilian life and if against the rules of war. Similar to a police office, a soldier is not
above the law but to uphold it and be a leader for the rest of the crew/society and therefore
the commanding officers should set the example. It is not the dropping the bomb goes
against this character but dropping it on civilians does. Why not drop the bomb on an army
base? Why not give them the opportunity to surrender? Why drop the second bomb after
seeing the immense destruction? Character/Virtue ethics would dictate that only right thing
to do is to drop it on soldiers or demonstrate the power or not drop the second bomb.