Our choices matter. The decisions we make in everyday life lead to an array of consequences that flow outwards, creating now opportunities for decisions which, themselves, lead to still more consequences. The ripple effect of our simplest choices appears infinite. Such decisions are even more weighty in a combat zone. 

This week we'll study two cases that help us analysis the importance of consequences and their relationship to moral constraints. The decision to drop atomic bombs over Japan is a case that clarifies the importance of having as accurate an understanding of the facts on the ground as can be obtained. To what degree such facts--or our interpretation of these facts--should influence our decision is a crucial question. 

Following our best moral intentions is a proper thing to do. We'll examine the duty to never leave our fallen comrades behind. But what do we do when our efforts to meet such moral duties meet with disaster that only seems to amplify additional harms or put additional goods at continued risk? Do we keep trying to do our duty? When do we stop? 

In all such matters, first and second order consequences abound. How we think about these things is an important part of moral deliberation

READ THIS

 Leave No One Behind

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Consequential Analyses

Hiroshima Discussion (reading)

Hiroshima Discussion (fact sheet)

WATCH THIS

Counting All the Dead: Historian Richard Frank on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the context of the end of the war in the Pacific

Prior to class, think through these questions:

1. In the video, historian Richard Frank attempts a careful historical accounting of the end of the war in the Pacific. He believes this context is important in order to properly understand the decision to drop the atomic bomb. 
   1. What is his argument? What do you think about it?
   2. Fox has prepared meticulously to be ready to encounter various scenarios. 
      1. How might his professional standards have influenced his decision to launch the first helo? What about the second?
   3. What is the strongest argument against his position? What, do you suppose, might Kant say in response?
2. To what degree, if any, does the bombing of Hiroshima meet the requirements of the Doctrine of Double Effect? 
   1. The doctrine requires a careful assessment of intention. What do you believe was, strictly speaking, the intent of the bombing? 
   2. Richard Frank suggests a primary intention was "ending the war as quickly as possible." Why does he believe that was a moral intention? 
3. Strong emotions often accompany moral deliberation
   1. In the Richard Frank interview, many of the callers give very emotional arguments in favor of the bombing, mostly grounded in family history in which fathers or grandfathers were slated to invade Japan. Many of these family members are convinced the bombing saved their older relatives' lives.
   2. Emotions certainly play a role in assessing whether to attempt a dangerous rescue of a friend in life-threatening danger. This raises in orders of magnitude when additional friends are endangered attempting rescue.
   3. What role, if any, do you believe such arguments should play in moral deliberation?