Play dumb semantic games, win dumb semantic prizes. Here’s your razz-bear-e.
Seems very logical and likely. I think the current battle between our democratic principals and the radical Right in this country illustrate this fact very well. We’re getting kicked in the balls and rabbit punched in the throat, but we insist on adhering to the Marquess of Queensberry Rules in order to maintain our “purity”. How’s that been working out for us?
It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the trolley problem as way to discuss ethics IMO. On one level it’s a pretty good model, you have all the millions of people who would die in the invasion of Japan on one side of the track, the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other. You can choose “don’t pull the lever” but the the trolley keeps going and we invade Japan, millions die.
On another it shows the weakness of the model as applied to real life. How sure are you pull the lever is the only option? Will all those people definitely die if you don’t pull it? In the real world you almost never have that perfect knowledge of the whole system and the repercussions. The people telling all this are they really only motivated by saving lives or are they just interested in showing off their high tech new trolley power to the competitors? Etc. etc.
Well, it wasnt. The US Navy wanted a blockade to starve the Japanese out. Of course, millions of Japanese would die, along with many POWs.
So five options- blockade, A-bomb, invade, keep regular bombing and hope they surrender, or leave them alone. That last would just mean no end to the war, so not really an option. But of the four, the A Bomb meant the least numbers of deaths.
It would arguably lead rapidly to humanity going extinct, depending on how somebody defines “evil”. We need to kill things for food, for example, we aren’t plants. If all violence is wrong, then we’d have all been eaten by predators is another issue. There’s also the issue of how women had to be pressured into having a great many children despite the pain and health problems caused by that just to keep up with the mortality rate.
Which is whole 'nother discussion that won’t be rehashed in this thread hopefully 
But it makes the point the weakness in the trolley problem is not the basic ethics of A vs B. It’s that in real life it’s never that simple, it’s never definely A if you pull the lever and definitely B if you do.
Except that there are a lot of people who doubt exactly that.
Hell, this question is so common, when typing in “was the bombing o”, Google automatically filed in “was the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki justified” for me.
If for no other reason, people aren’t precognitive. Even in the rare cases it’s technically that simple, the people wondering what to to do are unlikely to know that beforehand, or even afterwards. Normally, we are working off limited information on issues we imperfectly understand in the first place using methods we have only a limited control over.
One reason there’s so many moral debates over historical issues is that even with hindsight, we often still can’t be sure the people of the time made the right choice.
Again - this is not doubtless.
I’m not. I’m merely saying swans can be white. That white swans sometimes are a thing. As opposed to the dichotomy of black swan/no swan proposed by the OP.
It’s a shitty model which doesn’t include any of the other tracks that don’t involve dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets. Any realistic model of that situation would include multiple options - bomb an uninhabited/only military island or continue to blockade without invading or various other scenarios. Offering an either/or model is never a good model for real-world scenarios, as you go on to show in your next paragraph. So even you disagree that it’s a good model, unless by “at one level” you mean a uselessly superficial one.
That’s been my entire point about the OP’s dichotomy, and you’ve been arguing against that.
On the contrary, I’d say that the real world is sufficiently complicated that hypothetical non-evil solutions to many problems are impractical or well-nigh non-existent.
The typical example that always arises but is perfectly valid is what could have been done by the Allies about Nazi Germany under Hitler other than the destruction inherent and inevitable in outright war, and consequent death and suffering of innocent civilians on both sides.
A subset of this scenario is the fact that, AIUI, towards the end of the war the Allies became aware of the horrible atrocities taking place in the concentration camps. There was a proposal, in Britain at least, to bomb the camps as a means of disruption and hopefully to allow many prisoners to escape.
Whether this is factually supported or not is irrelevant; the relevant hypothetical is that the bombing was allegedly rejected because it would divert precious bombers and munitions from important strategic military targets whose destruction would help swing the war toward an Allied victory, and was thus more important based on the “greater good” argument. Should this extremely pragmatic decision be regarded as “evil”? It’s exactly like the trolley problem where you have limited choices and all of them are bad.
Including the atomic bombing of Japan doesn’t really help the discussion because most people think they know more about debate than they really do.
Just to pick one factor, unless you know, right now and without any research, who General Anami was, why was he important, what his position was concerning a possible surrender and terms, how the atomic bombing affected or didn’t affect his views, and his role in the surrender, then any opinion is not really worth engaging. Sorry.
A better example would be the firebombing campaign against Japan, including Operation Meetinghouse:
During Operation Meetinghouse on March 9–10, 1945, the United States Army Air Forces dropped approximately 380,000 incendiary bombs (about 1,665 tons) on Tokyo. The bombs were mostly cluster bombs containing napalm and white phosphorus, causing a massive firestorm that destroyed 16 square miles and killed up to 100,000 people. [1, 2, 3, [4]
(Bombing of Tokyo (1945) | WWII Firebombing, Casualties & Legacy | Britannica)
This is considered the most destructive act in war, and the death toll exceeded either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
War is messy. Tens of millions of civilians were killed and had the Axis not be stopped, many tens of millions more would have died.
If someone is going to take an extreme position and state that stopping scores of millions of civilians doesn’t justify the use of force which results in the death of any civilians, then I doubt anything I say would change their mind.
Then what’s your argument? That doing evil to prevent worse evil in never justified because sometimes there is a less evil alternative? The OP is not saying that in all situations there is always a dichotomy where attempting to use non-violence will always will result in a worse situation than using violence. Just that there are situations where that dichotomy exists.
That certainly seems to be what they’re saying to me.
Really?! He’s saying that in all situations, including calming down a crying toddler and buying a cup of lemonade from a lemonade stand, failing to use violence will result in more evil in the world? That’s a … Er… Interesting interpretation of the OP. I sense maybe thats a little bit of strawman
Funny, the OP I read was specifically about when lesser evil was needed to stop evil.
So unless the lemonade is laced with cyanide, your strawman is laughable.
Ha!
See, there? I laughed.
Hey it’s your strawman not mine. And that’s what it is a strawman, and it’s pretty laughable you are right. No one here, the OP or anyone else except you, is claiming there is always a dichotomy where there is never any choice except “do violence” or “accept terrible evil”. Only you made that claim..
The most obvious valid example, that makes the point, to me is the bombing of the SF Hydro by Norwegian resistance fighters in WW2. The ferry was being used by Germany to transport heavy water for the German nuclear bomb program. It was clearly an “evil” act that killed 14 innocent Norwegian civilians. But it was done to prevent the much greater evil of the Nazis developing an atomic bomb. And was totally justified ethically.
Despite the fact that with hindsight we know the nazis were never going to develop an atomic bomb, no matter how much heavy water they had. The people who made the decision to bomb the ferry didn’t know that, so it’s still an ethically sound decision (this contradicts the idea that only outcomes matter)