Hiroshima and the Fat Man

The main argument for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being justified lies within the idea that Truman bombed these cities as a means to end a seemingly endless war to save the lives of millions of soldiers that could be killed in the future. However, after reading the assigned articles, that argument doesn’t seem to hold as much weight as I thought it did before. The scenario is similar to ones we laid out long ago to learn about Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism: do you kill some people to save a lot of people? Thus far I have always taken a Utilitarian viewpoint and said that it is always worth saving more people, but Hiroshima has changed my mind. The amount of damage done by the bomb must warrant a constraint on what can be done for the greater good. The after-effects described in the Takahashi, Japanese Perspectives, and Hiroshima testimonies readings are reminiscent of chemical weapons, which themselves are subjects of great debate in ethics because they are inhumane and can less precisely target without harming civilians. I am also reminded of the distinction between the railroad track, organ donor, and fat man cases discussed previously: intent. Without a patient or a fat man to intend to kill the case would not even really exist, whereas if 1 person did not happen to be tied to the other side of the tracks from 5 others you could still flip the switch. In another example, when American bombers attack targets hiding in foreign counties, such as military operations that hide among civilians, the bombing could be considered justified because if the civilian casualties were not there the bombing would be more obviously justified (if you believe in that kind of stuff). However, terrorists suicide-bombing civilians in a shopping mall cannot be considered justified because if the civilians were not present the bombing would have no purpose. As it relates to Hiroshima, America chose to target a massive amount of civilians to demoralize Japan into surrender, and as it follows from before the act was unjustified, which is how many look back at it today.  As Gandhi said in his piece, evil only brings evil, only good brings good, and therefore the only way we can end violence is non-violence.