Refelctions

I think that ethics and ethical values are very much situational and therefore a leader may not always be ethically ‘good’ but will do the greatest good for the greatest number. This utilitarian approach was shown clearly in the events of 1945; the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both of these were ethically questionable since the death toll ranged from 150,000–246,000 people for the two disasters combined, and were considered to be the best option to ending the war. Machiavelli favoured the utilitarian view, and believed that a decision should be based on the ‘common good’ and in this case the defence was that the atomic bombs killed fewer people than if the war were to have continued on. I think that this was an exploitation of the knowledge that the Americans had of the Japanese since they knew that the Japanese would never surrender and would rather turn to death than admit defeat. However, at the same time, it is very likely that there would have been a much greater death toll if the war were to have continued on, and most likely it would have become even more difficult for the countries to repair the bonds broken by this war. This decision was one that was definitely ethically challenging for Truman, since he had to make the call of whether or not it was better to end the war by mass murder or to continue. I think that, in this condition, this option was the greatest good for the greatest number, and that many many more lives would have been lost, and the suffering would have extended to the extent that resources would have decreased even further and the world’s economy would have been completely destroyed. However these bombing also now act as a deterrent as everyone understands that war will now end in Mutually Assured Destruction, and after the events of 1945, this is something to be consciously avoided.