…in a discussion thread on Jon Stewart’s cowardly retraction of his “Truman: War Criminal” statement.
I wanted to start a discussion on the Stewart/Truman bruhaha, so I thought posting this little “discussion” would be an okay way to start things off…
My adversary doesn’t respond too well to my argument borrowed from Ralph Raico.
sextusempiricus 2 points 23 hours ago[-]
Think about it this way. What if Truman didn’t have a nuke, but instead had death squads go through Hiroshima and Nagasaki and shoot every man, woman, and child through the head? Would you call him a war criminal then? If so, then what difference does using bombs make, other than soldiers not having to get their hands dirty?
JohnMaynardKeynes 1 point 8 hours ago[-]
If the forces were available to do what you describe, then our options in Japan would have been quite different, so it’s not a valid counterfactual.
As it was, the three options appear to have been (a) lose tens or hundreds of thousands in a full scale invasion, (b) nuke, (c) withdraw.
Option (b) is a blunt attack. It is not morally equivalent to any another attack that achieves the same end, because of the historical contingencies.
Also, keep in mind that we were fairly sure that both (a) and (b) would result in victory, and that the Japanese knew this, but they were determined to fight until they could not fight any more, which under option (a) leads to the enormous loss of American life.
It’s not a great moment in American history.
sextusempiricus 0 points 7 hours ago[-]
Look up “casuistry” in ethical philosophy. Contingencies are incidental to the moral question. IF all things were equal other than the use of bombs or guns, would you consider “Death Squad” Truman a war criminal? Never mind whether you think it would happen. If so, then you have no good reason to think differently of Nuke-Dropping Truman.
JohnMaynardKeynes 1 point 6 hours ago[-]
Contingencies are incidental to the moral question
What an idiotic thing to say (not to mention that all you have done is asserted it). Truman had a constrained choice. He picked what he considered the least worst option. Your response is to insist that I ignore that while giving no reason why I should do that. How worthless.
sextusempiricus 1 point 1 hour ago[-]
What an idiotic thing to say
Doesn’t take you long to get mean-spirited, does it? Fine then, we’ll have that kind of a debate.
You know, you’re even worse in moral philosophy than you are in economics. In ethics, just as in economics, you have no grasp on theory, and the use of hypothetical questions in untangling theoretical problems. You’re proving just as dull to ethical casuistry as you are to Crusoe economics.
Answer the question, dullard: IF Truman used death squads instead of bombs, WOULD you consider him a war criminal?
JohnMaynardKeynes 1 point 1 hour ago_*_ [-]
Typical response! You refuse to discuss anything except exactly as you want to discuss it. Don’t like what someone else says? You can try redefining the words they’re using, you can try broadly asserting that their approach is just dead wrong and vaguely refer them to a massive literature in support, you can accuse them of acting in bad faith even though a basic tenet of your life seems to be to act in bad faith, you can abruptly declare victory, and of course, your favorite, you can stridently accuse everyone else of making the most elementary of mistakes that could be only understood by a select few redditors who have been boning up on some subject for a few months with downloadable pdfs and now can defeat any world expert. Which will be next? I’m excited!
sextusempiricus 1 point 8 minutes ago[-]
You refuse to discuss anything except exactly as you want to discuss it.
I posted my “death squad” question first. You’re the one who responded with a non-answer and a change of subject.