Sexual Slavery, a local issue too.

Sexual slavery is an awful thing. I do believe it is hypocritical of today’s society, especially American society to condemn the African slave trade while slavery continues to thrive today. One of the major reasons the general public is misinformed about this issue is the lack of media coverage. Due to the nature of our class assignment, the group presenting on this issue did not choose a Western author, and therefore, we are reading about the unfortunate stories of young girls in locations which are highly remote to many of us. Not saying this lessens the moral issue of the problem, but it may create this false idea of immoral people living elsewhere and belonging to another culture. It creates an illusion of this issue not occurring locally and under our noses.

It is important to know that sexual slavery, as hinted by the texts, transcends any and all borders. Sexual slavery thrives in the US as much as it does in Cambodia and India. One of the largest events to generate sexual slavery is the super bowl, however many people who praise this event are not aware of the amount of human trafficking this event generates. This past super bowl, girls as young as thirteen were busted as prostitutes. When speaking to a FBI agent, he informed me that many girls are recruited into sexual slavery at the King of Prussia mall. How many of us stop to think about this? Most of us are familiar with this mall, yet we are unaware of this tragedy occurring right before us. Pimps target young girls with low self-esteem and who yearn for the material objects others have. Through psychological tactics they promise the girls large sums of money and offer them a lifestyle difficult to resist. A young girl easily falls prey to this illusion and after time finds herself caught in an abusive and dangerous lifestyle.

I used to work at the King of Prussia mall and am sure I met a pimp. I was on break one day and he asked to sit at my table. I said I was fine with it and continued to play on my phone. This man began conversing with me, he seemed extremely outgoing and charismatic and I found myself chatting with him. After a couple of minutes some of his questions seemed strange to me and I excused myself and went on my way. Of course I could have been misjudging this man, but I believe an essential tool in combatting sexual slavery is knowing when to flag potential pimps and educating women to avoid these men and women. This is especially important at the local level. The difficulty with sexual slavery is that there are many layers to it. We need to teach our girls and women to value themselves, we need society to support this message and support our girls. Combating sexual slavery on an international level is essential yet must be done carefully. As Nicholas Kristoff pointed out, simply buying the slaves out of slavery is not enough to eliminate the systematic problem, especially in cultures where the girls are shamed after being prostitutes.

 In an era of sexual tourism and mail-order brides, sexual slavery has become more accessible. We can see technology aiding in sexual slavery but also combating it. I recently read an article about Tinder and the Irish police forces working together to create a profile of a normal looking woman, but then as a person swipes to look at the woman’s photos, he or she finds a blurb on how to potentially identify a victim of sexual slavery. These technological advances are a step into a better direction, yet as with anything and everything, we must understand the cultural norms before fixing the problem.

Sex Slavery

After reading the article Sex Slavery, From the Hills of Nepal to the Brothels of Delhi by Nikhil Nigam my first reaction was shock as to the lack of effort on the part of the police and the relaxed attitude the government has in following up and prosecuting offenders of trafficking. What also shocked me was the statement “On paper, prostitution per se is not illegal in India as per the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act1986, and our lawmakers regarded it as an unavoidable evil”. To call trafficking an unavoidable evil just shows the lack of regard the government is showing of the lives of these women. One could put forth the argument that the government needs to step up and start to enforce these laws and take seriously the claims that people are submitting, yet I think when looking at this problem as a whole a large issue immerges that needs to be addressed. That issue being the way women in general are treated in these countries. From this article it becomes clear that women are looked at as less than men, and a lower second class of citizens. For the problem of prostitution to stop the outlook and treatment of women needs to change, there is no befits that come out of the way women are treated. Rather it has become part of the culture, and from what I have seen in the article is basically accepted. For the issues to stop the men of these countries and the government officials need to recognize women as equals, who deserve the same rights as men. The first changes need to start in government as they need to recognize that this in fact is an avoidable evil, and looking at other countries like the U.S for example, though trafficking and prostitution does occur our government takes it seriously and prosecutes offenders.    

Blog post 10

If you choose to post by Wednesday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about sex slavery , OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about sex slavery.

Comfort Women

The argument that the conscription of Korean or Chinese women, or even their voluntary service, for the purpose of “satisfying” the needs of Japanese soldiers in order to “protect” the soldiers themselves and the population of native women around them is a utilitarian argument and it is a bad one. It stems back to one of the major Kantian arguments against using people as tools. Even if the comfort women provide a solution to several different problems, that’s not the point. They are a poor solution for an even worse systemic problem, men raping women. All of the reasons put forth for the use of comfort women in the Bin article revolve around men. If we don’t use comfort women, men will just rape the locals, contract diseases and possibly leak secrets as well. Plus, sex might do them good in combat. While the author points out that comfort women were largely an extension of the state of Japan, all of these reasons serve more as the justifications for a past wrong as opposed to a case for moral/historical relativism. Hiromichi, in his piece “The Truth About the Comfort Women”, is quick to point out that many other countries and areas entrenched in war have suffered and propagated kinds of systems similar to Japan’s comfort women. This is a valid criticism and I think Hiromichi, Japan and the entire world can benefit from the lesson of the comfort women. Perhaps the recruitment process by the Japanese military wasn’t as wide spread as many activists claim it to be. Maybe the total number of women in service of the military wasn’t as high as some think. Maybe they all volunteered. Regardless, what no one can ignore is that the stories of Kim Bok-dong from the Amnesty article are real, and there are other women from around the globe with stories like her. The governments of the world must recognize these women and validate their struggles and no one can be allowed to dismiss their stories or be allowed to make excuses for what happened to them. Most importantly, men of the world must make the first step in equality by recognizing the dominance over women they have perpetuated since the birth of humanity.  

Comfort Women

The dispute that I think is the hardest to wrap my head around is whether or not comfort women were forced into prostitution or if they were just in it for the money.  I think that it is hard to assess whether or not they were truly raped and brutalized if they were in it for the money.  This is not to discredit that they went through horrible times and saw many terrible things, but it brings about the question as to whether or not they knew what they were getting into.  I think this related to the soldiers and civilians debate that we had last class.  For the women who were forcefully taken and forced into sex slavery, they deserve an apology.  Even though the apology will not take back what was done to them, it will finally make someone responsible and make it less likely to happen in the future.  I think that the sex slaves that were just in it for the money do not have as strong as a case as those who were forced into it.  I think that since we are not sure who was or was not forced into it, it is hard to make a blanket statement as to whether or not the government was to blame or not.  I also think that these articles bring up questions that I would have never thought of before such as whether or not they were forced into it, and if the money was the reason for them selling themselves.  With all that being said, I do not agree with being paid for sex because it raises too much debate on whether or not they were forced to do things they didn’t want to do.

Moral objection to comfort women

While reading these articles my biggest moral objection pertains to the necessity of the comfort women. Many articles allude to or simply state that providing comfort women for the young men in the military was necessary to prevent against rape and pillaging. One of my objections to this is that these Japanese soldiers did not need comfort women, instead they should have been better policed. The Asia Times article raises this point, “"the Japanese army is probably the most undisciplined army in the world today". Instead of punishing the solders for the rapes, the government provided women that they could legally use for sex. This creates a very unhealthy allowance for those men in the military, and instead of rewarding them for their bad behavior the government should have cracked down and punished the men. The article points out that the amount of rapes lowered after providing more comfort women, but what about the women who were coerced or pressured into working in the sex industry? It seems to me that the government hid behind the idea that comfort women were “choosing” to be sexual objects. 

Comfort Women

It is hard for me to take a hard stance on the comfort women we read about because there are just as many accounts basically saying nothing happened as there are detailed accounts of the kidnappings, etc.  There was clearly some violation to these girls as the Japanese men who partook in these events feel high levels of guilt and remorse however most will not confess to their crimes.  This makes it much harder to know exactly how all the events surrounding this topic played out.   The moral implications of taking women out of their hometowns under the false pretenses of a job offer, etc., are so terrible I don't doubt at all that the people involved will do anything in their power to hide what they truly allowed to happen.  After reading the first hand account of the women I cannot help but wonder how a society was able to become so patriarchal to the point of objectifying one gender so much that they were shipped off with the armies as pure tension releasers.  Surely there is a better way to aid and support your armies than shipping off a larger percentage of your civilian population or captives to deal with the mental and physical tortures of war and sex slavery.

Blog post 10

If you choose to post by Monday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about comfort women, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about comfort women.

Christian's and Euthanasia

In terms of Christian ethics on the subject of Euthanasia, it is stated in the case of a patient's request that "the exercise of autonomy has to be limited in order that human beings may live together in reasonable harmony," and that, "the right to personal autonomy is not absolute." The argument then builds on two more objections. The first, that it would be difficult to tell whether requests for euthanasia are truly voluntary and not the result of depression or outside pressure from other people. The second, that it would result in the breakdown of trust between doctor and patient. The argument then finishes out with an explanation that the hospice movement grew out of Christian concerns that people should be helped to die with dignity; and that it is the killing, rather than caring, which denies the dignity of the dying.

The argument of someone's autonomy being limited in order for human beings to live together in reasonable harmony seems, in this case, too broad. If an individual is terminally ill and in constant pain as a result, to limit their autonomy when it comes to a request to end their pain and suffering instead of letting them suffer longer until their eventual death, it seems unethical to allow that unnecessary pain. If the question is whether the request is truly voluntary and not the result of depression or outside influence, there may be two potential rejoinders. The first would be a question of what if the outside influence for the request came from discussions with close relatives? It seems likely that the opinions of multiple close relatives on whether the sick individual should request euthanasia from their doctor, or not, would come out of concern for the person's well-being, and nothing else. The second rejoinder is on the consideration of depression as the influence for the request. If the individual is depressed on top of the sickness, pain, and impending death, it seems to only add to the suffering and therefore potentially make the request for euthanasia still voluntary despite the depression. Finally, the act of killing is certainly a difficult moral decision, especially in this case. But, if this is a case of continued suffering before impending death, could the "killing" in order to put the person at peace be considered morally acceptable when done by a medical professional?

Care of Souls

In the Stonington and Ratanakul article, it is argued that part of the problem with removing people from ventilators is that the soul of the person doing the operation is in jeopardy.  It is further argued that this is not merely a self-interest dilemma, because it in the Thai view, the conflict between self-interest and ethical duty is indistinguishable, and it is impossible to remove the ventilator without ill-will. 

To me, this part of the argument is a bit waffley because the authors cite a good explanation from a physician that “it may be the best thing for the patient [to withdraw the ventilator], but how could you find someone who would do it?” but they also say that it is impossible to end a life without ill will toward the person.  In order to accept this, we must accept that even if you do something for someone because you feel it is best for them, you still automatically have ill will toward them.  I think this is ridiculous, but for the sake of argument, I will concede the point.

Even if some people take this strong stance about souls, there is no reason that it should apply to everyone.  A soul is extremely personal, I would argue the most personal thing in the world, and I see no reason to give political credence to views based on telling everyone else how to take care of theirs. 

A similar view is taken in the Harry Potter series, in that killing rips the soul apart.  When Dumbledore is dying, he asks Professor Snape the favor of using a killing curse on him so that the causes Dumbledore lived for could be furthered, and so that Draco Malfoy would not have to kill.  The following dialogue takes place between the two of them:

Dumbledore: "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged. I would not have it ripped apart on my account."

Snape: "And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"

Dumbledore: "You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation."

Euthanasia in Islam

The act of euthanasia is quite controversial over its split between whether or not someone can willingly take their own life because of a terminal disease or heavy illness. In Islam we find the same issues plague our western societies but I believe because of the deeper understanding of medicine there is room to see which way medicine can help but still keep the free will of the patient.

                “No harm shall be inflicted or reciprocated in Islam,” are the proclamations of the Prophet Muhammad and that line has to abided by, however there are ways now that not necessarily one is killing a patient but lessening their life by using something to make them comfortable. This is an act that is permissible in Islam and that I believe can be agreed with. A terminal patient has the right to lessen their life to make it easier on them if they are terminal. At that point its an issue of suffering and human dignity and at some point life can be allowed to be shortened with proper procedure to in crease quality of life.

                What cannot be allowed and I do not agree with is the issue of Islam not allowing the assisted suicide. I believe that everyone here has a mission, however when there is someone in immeasurable pain and all the morphine in the world can do them no good and on their terms they decide that they do not want to endure more pain, agony and lack of dignity, they should have the right to die. The basic thing a human has is its desire to make choices for itself, after that humans are reduced to moving and active creatures that do not have any higher level thinking or any autonomy over their lives, in some words they lose what makes them human. No one that doesn’t want to go the whole way in a situation of terminal disease should be forced to, instead they should be allowed to have their own free will. 

Euthanasia and a fundamental disjunction

I believe that there is a dis-junction within the “Killing, Karma, and Caring: Euthanasia in Buddhism and Christianity” article in respects to their use of Deontological reasoning. They argue that euthanasia is bad because the use of it deprives the respect of human life and it helps individuals to be used as ends rather than means. Explicitly stated, “Human life is a basic good in itself rather than as a means to an end, whether that end be conceived of as life of a certain minimum ‘quality’ or the good of the state or anything else” (267) This belief in means rather than ends as the proper way to treat humans is one of the fundamental beliefs of deontologists. However, they continue down the page to speak against autonomy, “Moreover, the exercise of autonomy has to be limited in order that human beings may live together in reasonable harmony” (267). Autonomy is one of the other basic important beliefs within deontology and I struggle with how the authors support their arguments through ideas contradictory to basic fundamental ethical structure. I think that autonomy is incredibly important in treating humans as means and not just ends, and maybe I just cannot separate the two within my mind. 

Euthanasia and instrument of killing

I for one, although this may be radical, support euthanasia. I believe one should have the full authority to claim rights over their life and their body. I, however, agree that euthanasia should not be taken lightly. There should be certain conditions before any individual may be euthanized. Individuals should be in proper mental health and should understand the morality and consequences behind such an act; in Christianity it would be to remind them of their life's relation and value to God, and in Buddhism it would be to remind them of their spiritual destiny. To prevent euthanasia, is to, in my opinion, strip the ultimate agency one has over themselves. It is to say, you may do most things to your body insofar as they do not harm another; however you do not have the ultimate control over your life.

In my opinion, the Christian opposition to euthanasia is fundamentally flawed. To say one should not take away their life because it's  value is based on the creator,  suggests that  life's only value is the creator, not  its essence or soul. I am more inclined to support the Buddhist belief that life is valuable because of its spiritual journey. In response to the Buddhist belief, I would first and foremost say that I do not believe ending your human or physical life is ending Life. By Life I mean to say the journey the spirit engages in. Sure, it may seem like a cop-out, but it could also be an important factor in the spirit's journey.

Euthanasia and the Path Toward Nirvana

In “Killing, Karma, and Caring” Damien and John Keown write for Buddhists, “the intentional hastening of death, is, however, morally unacceptable in all circumstances.” This is based on the Buddhist belief in the sanctity of life, which is based not in its divine origin, but rather its spiritual destiny, which is the achievement of the final perfect state of nirvana. I will argue that this understanding of the sanctity of life should support Buddhist acceptance of euthanasia as a morally acceptable medical practice for terminally ill patients.

First, if a patient’s spiritual destiny is achieving nirvana, acting in such a way that would lead an individual to such a state is impossible when a patient is comatose with little hope of recovering. In this instance, euthanasia seems to be the most compassionate option, as it gives the patient the opportunity to achieve nirvana in another state. My Buddhist opponent will likely respond that achieving human rebirth is rare, and that throwing it away through euthanasia is a mistake. While this belief is legitimate for a Buddhist, I still would say that in this case where a patient would seek to speed up death, the chance to achieve the higher state of nirvana appears to be non-existent for a patient confined to a hospital bed and ventilator.

Second, I believe that in areas such as Thailand, where medical care is incredibly expensive, euthanasia is the most compassionate decision a patient can make for his community. I believe that a terminally ill living in such a place where the financial burden of sustaining his life is so daunting to his community or family, that surrendering one’s life is the best way to further his spiritual progress. Giving up one’s life in this case is the ultimate compassionate sacrifice for one’s community and family, and should be recognized by Buddhists as an action of a spiritually enlightened individual. 

Moral Active Euthanasia

When it comes to the question of morality, I have to disagree with all of these in regard to the most recent case of a woman named Brittany Maynard. On November 1^st she swallowed a lethal dose of prescribed medication and passed away, after receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis. I am perfectly fine with Ms. Maynard’s choice of active euthanasia and I believe it was moral. She was not believed to be under extreme emotional duress; she was a rational and competent thinker. She had exhausted every option to treat her brain cancer. It was the ultimate expression of her autonomy, the greatest gift bestowed to us in Kant’s mind. Most killing and suicide is viewed as a violation of the sanctity of life as bestowed by God or the pursuit of Nirvana. But for the reasons Kant puts forth, our autonomy is the only thing a person can really be sure of. No one gets to point to God or Nirvana as definite possibilities. Regardless of what any individual would do, I think it is unfair for someone to look to her and label her choice as immoral. She harmed no one in choosing to end her life on her own terms. There is an argument that she taints her character, but isn’t it her own choice to do so? It impedes no one else, others need only watch and show compassion. It could also be said that it sets a dangerous precedent, and erodes the trust between doctors and patients. I would place Ms. Maynard’s example as a very rare instance, and say that all options to save life should be explored before coming to this conclusion, and the physician prescribing life ending medication should obviously make clear beyond a shadow of a doubt the individual in question is of a sound mind. If this is the case, then I think this example of active euthanasia must be viewed as moral.  

Euthanasia

After reading and analyzing the article “Is there a global bioethics? End-of-life in Thailand and the case for difference” it is clear that the author is arguing that is unethical for a doctor to choose to pull a patient off of a mechanical ventilator. The case that was mentioned in the article was about a man who had fallen off a building while at work, which caused him to be unconscious and only alive because of a ventilator. The dilemma here is that the brother of the man could not chose what the outcome of the brother could be. According to the doctor he was not permitted to take him off of the mechanical ventilator because he was considered to be in a new type of life. In my own opinion I think that there are both pros and cons to Euthanasia. For the reasons I think that it should be allowed could come from any circumstances such as unbearable pain and life is just not possible, terminal illness that is getting progressively worse and I think it is far more cost effective than having to take care of someone for however long that person is on it. Euthanasia suggests that a person dyeing basically has no say at all in the matter, which ultimately makes that considered to be murder. I believe that assisted death is moral if the person is in excruciating pain or there is absolutely no possible way of further life.

The right to die

When looking at the pieces in regards to euthanasia particularly the piece about Thailand, has lead me to come to the conclusion that when making decisions about the suffering of another person and prolonging their life, the decision should solely be based upon medical facts. These decisions should not be make on the base of certain religious beliefs but rather the medical facts of the case. The decision to end a life is possibly the hardest decision that one could make but it should not be made based of what a certain religion dictates but rather the quality of like that one will lead. Recently in the news the story of Brittany Maynard has become a hot topic of discussion. She received the news that she was terminally ill and would have less than four month to live, she decided to enjoy her live and do what she wanted, in the end being euthanized. She sadly is no longer with us but I bring up this point to show that she took her family into account and the quality of life that she would live and the affects it would have on her family. When it comes down to matters of life and death I personally feel that religious beliefs should not become the number one priority, the weel being and quality of life of that person should. If that person is going to suffer and not have a good life I feel that they should have the right to end their own life.    

Blog post 9

If you choose to post by Wednesday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about euthanasia, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about euthanasia.

Blog Post # 9

I had a thought that applied so heavily to torture last week, but when Hiroshima came up, I had much the same opinion and thought process. The grotesque nature of unethical, torturous events, like Hiroshima, leave me feeling ashamed to be an American and it is that thought that makes me think that certain parties in unethical events bear a heavier weight in their actions.

Last class, we found ourselves debating whether the US was right to excuse these torturers and we abhorred the actions of the “bad blood” experiment. Many of those mutual feelings apply to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And much like last week, I feel like the point “war is hell. War permits more” could be made in the case of Hiroshima. I agree that war allows for certain warrants of action that would not normally occur in everyday life.

But I would like to bring to the front an example from popular culture today. I don’t know if you watch the Walking Dead (or read the comics) but one episode really reminded me about these torturous events. To put this in perspective, there are two groups. One group we’ll call righteous enthusiasts, the other survivors. Essentially both of these groups believe in a cause that they find just; they battle head to head – a member of the survivors is beaten and his leg severed for the righteous enthusiasts consumption. Now, the survivors spearhead a fantastic tactic which brings all of the enthusiasts into their dwelling and the survivors kill the enthusiasts. The thing that makes me stop and question is that the survivors had control of the enthusiasts. Yet this group- who (throughout the season) the audience has come to love and honor as the "good guys" the people who save others- beats the shit out of them to the point of their death. They kill them so viciously that the location for the scene had to be held in a fake church. I found this decision to be grotesque and excessive. I am left to question why I found such an atrocity so unethical. 

After reading about Hiroshima - I think why we find decisions like these, made in war or otherwise, so inhumane and unethical is because we think of the United States, or the survivors, as the good guys, the people who must do right. If they don't it seems to injure the situation more. Especially since the good parties are knowledgeable and should have known better. 

When the situation occurs that the party is evil, for example Mengele –his actions have already the assumption to be awful. His actions were notably wrong and thus his actions were unsurprisingly unethical. Evil doers do not hit the hearts of the audience (witnesses/people) nearly as much as the good doers,  those whom which the watchers associate themselves with more. 

Moral Arguments Against A-Bombs

I support the moral arguments against the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the harm and suffering that many people went through.  I think that it was just to end the war because we saved many lives, but I think that the bomb was immoral.  I think that it was hard to read these articles because of the devastation caused and how long the people suffered.  I think that when reading the different testimonies about people who lived through the bombings, they went through so much pain so we could see what kind of devastation we could cause.  People watched family members burn alive and had their skin torn off, and now live with the scars everyday as a reminder of just how awful the atomic bombing really was. 

                The moral arguments against the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki take into account the stated purpose of the United States and place is against logic. That purpose has been disputed by the Japanese who were affected by the bombing. The victims feel that the United States violated the principles of human decency with the dropping of the bombs. When compared to the conventional bombs used at the time, both types of Atomic bombs were superior in their destructive force. The destruction was beyond the force necessary to achieve the aims of the US. Not only was the impact sudden in the killing of close to 200,000 immediately after the dropping, but the radiation from the bomb created lasting health problems. It is known that when war occurs, collateral damage will occur, but the targets should never be non-combatants. In the case of the nuclear bombs, there was no discrimination in the choice of targets as the bomb would clearly affect men, women and children. In doing so, the United States abandoned all pretense of civility in war and broke the moral code associated with the practice. The destruction and moral grievances associated with the atomic bombs outweighed the practical reasons that came with the dropping of the bombs.  

A-Bomb justifacations

Connor Newlin
While the articles are all strongly opposed to the Atomic bomb and make persuasive arguments it is important to keep in mind that the articles were all written by non-western people often whose countries do not have the ability to produce or fund such scientific and expensive warfare. President Trueman did not authorize the dropping of this bomb with no support, many backed his stance and wanted to end the war before more people got hurt. People from countries with active bombs ready are a majority "western" in nature so of course those who can not produce the bombs will be strongly opposed to them aka Japan at the time of the bombing. While the means of getting Japan out of the war were seen as cruel and brutal their attack on Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war was seen as one of the more tragic days in U.S. history. Whose to say Japan wouldn't launch more brutal attacks on U.S. soil if the bombings didn't occur? Japan staying in the war means a great deal more of violence and killing of U.S. soldiers. While horrid in nature the bombing certainly accomplished its goal quickly and efficiently. "War is Hell" in the end of the day it is us against them and we will do what it takes to keep more of us safe.

Emotions and A-bombs

I found these pieces incredibly moving, especially the memoirs of survivors and those affected by the atomic bombs. As I sat here reading, and to be honest, crying at times, I couldn't help but wonder why the forefathers of ethics focused so heavily on rationality, with a seeming aversion to emotions. Are the two even dichotomous or mutually exclusive? While it is commonly argued that rationality comes from reason and facts, and that emotions cloud our ability to reason, I believe it can be equally irrational to not listen to emotions. I don’t believe that the reason we have morality is because we have rationality. I believe it must be an intersection of the two, and that maybe morality is something that comes from the inseverable ties of rationality and emotions that come with being a human being.

Now, getting to the atomic bomb- the way we are taught in many high school history classes, is that the atomic bomb was dropped and that it was the only way we could have stopped the war. One reason I think that this is a morally wrong argument is that it fails to acknowledge the pain and suffering the bomb caused then and still causes today. It is a suffering that at least I, cannot fathom. I believe a failure to feel remorse and disgust for the actions of our military, or to not consider the emotional outcomes of this event is indicative of moral shortcoming. To bridge the gap between emotional appeals and rational appeals, I believe that the atom bomb arguments that they were necessary are irrational as well. This argument is much like the fire with fire argument we discussed in class and speaks to the quote by F.W. de Klerk that we… “have learned that true security comes from our ability to solve complex problems peacefully rather than by imagining that we can achieve anything by threatening ultimate destruction.” I believe that this mode of thinking is applicable to atomic bomb arguments. This argument does get trickier when trying to defend it in terms of always attempting to solve all problems peacefully and thinking about a group like Boko Haram. However, I think this more so speaks to our inability to conceive of other ways of thinking and functioning as a global society—much like the argument stating the Ancient Greeks knew slavery was wrong, they just couldn't conceive of an alternative economic system. 

Atomic Bombs

                   I would have to agree with all of the articles that despite a small potential benefit to ending the war early, the cost and inhumanity of the atomic bombings far outweigh any benefits. The testimony by Akihiro Takahashi seemed to show this the most when he discussed the horror of viewing the blast firsthand and went on to discuss how there were many other ways to potentially end the war. While there is a counterargument that there several warnings about the bombing, none of them seem to be clear about how devastating the bombs would be. The first apparent warning that was given in the Potsdam Declaration, but this this only vaguely stated " The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction" which doesn't necessarily imply the use a weapon as horrifying as the atomic bomb. I've also seen pictures of pamphlets that were dropped to warn the people in the cities, but I haven't found any official sources that confirm that these exist. Furthermore the location of one of the bombings was changed due to weather and other factors so the leaflets wouldn't have done any good anyway. 

                The worst part about the bombs was that unlike traditional bombing there was a radiation zone that caused hundreds of thousands of people to die slowly and painfully. Those that even survived the radiation had horrible scars and disfigurements to serve as a constant reminder to them about the bombing. While it clearly wasn't necessary and we could have figured it out without a demonstration, the one benefit that I can think of for the bombing is that it will hopefully serve as reminder that these weapons should never be used again due to the firsthand accounts and stories of the horror that these bombs can cause.

Hiroshima

                I would have to agree with Akihiro Takahashi’s view on the atomic bombs. While they forced a surrender from Japan, it was done in a morally impermissible way. Takahashi was 14 when the bomb was dropped almost 70 years ago but is “chronically ill” today because of the long lasting effects. Kinue Tomoyasu was 44 years old when the bomb was dropped. She tells of how her daughter died in her arms because of the immediate effects of the bomb. She felt the bombs effects a few months later starting with her hair falling off and the appearance of purple spots on her skin. There are a multitude of different reasons that using an atomic bomb is wrong and much worse than using a normal fire bomb. For one, a fire bomb doesn’t have that large of an attack area, it is generally controlled. An atomic bomb’s effects can span the area of an entire city, like it did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Atomic bomb effects are for the remainder of the survivor’s life because of the radiation. In a sense, an atomic bomb is like a form of torture, it is painful and drawn out. Those affected by it are forced to feel the repercussions of it every day. With a fire bomb, while I don’t condone dropping it on a town filled with civilians, the effects are immediate, barring any necessary healing time. But the difference here is it does have healing time, an atomic bomb, on the other hand, is constantly negatively affecting a person’s life and health. In addition to these readings, I had the opportunity to read Hiroshima by John Hersey. The book is filled with harrowing stories from survivors about the day the bomb was dropped and how they coped with it. I feel as though that in order to support the decision the United States made in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you also have to be able to morally accept the pain and suffering they caused on the innocent citizens of the two cities. 

Hiroshima

The take on Hiroshima that it was an experiment on the United States part was very disconcerting to me.  Because two types of bombs were dropped (plutonium and uranium) and two separate cities were targeted, it is very likely the United States were trying to figure out which type of bomb would produce their desired effect (whatever that may have been).  Some believe it is because they wanted to end the war once and for all and testing these types of weapons was a bonus to ending the was.  Many Japanese find these seemingly experimental bombings inhumane and cruel.  Regardless of what information the US obtained from dropping the atomic bomb(s), it was not worth advancing the world's level of warfare or the high number of deaths and long term injuries caused.  Not only did the bomb kill an obscene number of people, it introduced a prolonged sickness into that part of the world.  This affected an entire city, an economy, and an ecosystem.  I am not sure the US knew the repercussions in the years to come after the dropping of the atomic bomb because they were so worried about obtaining an instantaneous & indisputable end to the war.  By only looking at the short term, I feel the United States caused a catastrophic event that they could never take back and never fix based essentially on a sneaky way to get what they wanted.