Untitled

• Ethics and Pub Policy Exam 1

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Truman & Hiroshima)

Historical Context

• By the summer of 1945, WWII was ending in the Pacific, yet Japan had not surrendered.
• The U.S. sought a way to end the war quickly, with minimal casualties.

War in the Pacific & Japanese Resistance

• The U.S. had taken key territories via island-hopping.
• Japan's leaders refused to surrender, in spite of heavy losses.
• An invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) was estimated to cause hundreds of thousands of American casualties, plus potentially millions of Japanese deaths.

The Manhattan Project & Development of the Bomb

• The Manhattan Project developed nuclear weapons in secret.
• Two bombs were ready: "Little Boy" (uranium), and "Fat Man" (plutonium).
• "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.
• "Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

The Decision to Drop the Bomb

• President Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb on Japan without warning them.
• The goal was to force Japan's surrender, to prevent a costly invasion, and to demonstrate U.S. power to the Soviet Union.

The Bombings & Effects

• Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) had ~140,000 estimated deaths.
• This was by the end of 1945 from radiation, blast, and fires.
• Casualties were mostly civilians, though there were some military targets like an army headquarters.
• Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) had ~70,000 estimated deaths by the end of 1945.
• The area had a more industry, but still resulted in civilian deaths.
• On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's surrender.
• WWII officially ended on September 2, 1945.

Ethical Frameworks for Analyzing the Bombing

Just War Theory (Michael Walzer)

• Morality of war is evaluated in two parts.
• Jus ad Bellum ("Justice OF War") defines whether the US was justified in waging war.
• The U.S. was already at war with Japan after Pearl Harbor in 1941.
• Japan's leaders did not surrender despite multiple defeats.
• Dropping the bomb would end war quicker and save lives.
• The war was already ongoing, and the U.S. had a legitimate reason to seek conclusion.
• Jus in Bello ("Justice IN War") defines if the bombings were conducted ethically.
• Discrimination Principle states that military actions must target combatants and not civilians.
• Problem: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were densely populated, and most casualties were civilians.
• Proportionality Principle: The harm caused cannot exceed the military advantage gained.
• Supporters argue that dropping the bomb prevented a larger bloodbath.
• Critics argue that the bomb caused excessive and indiscriminate damage.
• Ethical Dilemma: Bombings may have gone against jus in bello due to indiscriminate killing.

Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

• DDE defines whether civilian harm can be justifiable.
• Used to to find whether an action with both good and bad effects can be justified.
• There are four conditions that must be met.
• The Act Itself needs to be morally neutral.
• Destroying enemy military infrastructure is regarded as immoral.
• Deliberate attacks on civilians violate Just War Theory.
• The Intended Effect must be morally acceptable.
• U.S. intended to end the war and force Japan's surrender.
• Mass civilian deaths were an unintended effect.
• The Bad Effect Must Not Be Intended (Only Foreseen).
• Truman's administration intended to strike military targets.
• They did know civilians would die in massive numbers.
• Criticism: If the U.S. knew civilians would die, can their deaths be considered unintended?
• The Good Must Outweigh the Harm is defined under Proportionality.
• Supporters argue that preventing an invasion saved millions of lives.
• Critics argue that Japan was already about to surrender, so bombings were unnecessary.
• Ethical Dilemma: the Doctrine of Double Effect might not have been satisfied since civilian harm was perhaps intended.

Arguments for and Against the Bombing

• For: Ending the war quickly, saving American and Japanese lives, demonstrating U.S. power, and retaliation for Pearl Harbor justify the bombing.
• Against: Mass civilian casualties, Japan was already near surrender, alternatives were available, and set a dangerous precedent for nuclear weapons.

Final Evaluation: Was the Bombing Justified?

• Truman's justification (Pro-Bombing): The bomb ended WWII and saved American and Japanese lives, forced Japan's surrender preventing a long war, Japan's refusal to surrender made forced necessary.
• Criticism (Anti-Bombing): Violates Just War Theory due to civilians being the target, Japan was weakened and invasion might not have been needed, alternative tactics not fully explored.
• Doctrine of double effect verdict is unclear, with victory as true goal is somewhat justified.
• Included intimidating of the Soviet Union makes bombings fully unintended and unethical.
• Takeaways: Bombing raised ethical war and morality questions, Jus War theory suggests war was justified but violated the conduct, Doctrine of Double Effect is unclusive as it could have been avoided, war crime views exist.

Exam Strategy for This Case

• Identify the ethical problem, was the bombing morally justified?
• Evaluate the Jus ad belum (was war justified) and Jus in bello (actions in war justified).
• Apply Doctrine of Double Effect evaluating intent, proportionality, and foreseen harm.
• Weigh arguments on all sides with ethical military, and historical perspectives.
• Reach conclusion with evidence supporting it.

Political Deception & the Iran-Contra Affair

Historical Context

• The Iran-Contra Affair (1980s) involved secret U.S. government dealings with Iran and Nicaraguan rebels (Contras) under President Reagan.
• The scandal became public in 1986 and involved a covert operation violating U.S. laws and Congressional restrictions.

Key Events Leading to the Scandal

• 1984-1985: U.S. Hostages in Lebanon
• Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group in Lebanon, kidnapped American citizens.
• Reagan's administration sought to negotiate, even though he publicly stated a no-negotiation policy with terrorists.
• 1985-1986: Arms Sales to Iran
• U.S. secretly sold Iran weapons, despite it violating U.S. policy, and keeping it a secret from Congress and the public.
• The U.S. had an arms embargo because of the Iran-Iraq War and Iran was considered a terrorist sponsor.
• Goal was supposedly to secure the release of hostages in Lebanon.
• 1985-1986: Funding the Nicaraguan Contras.
• The U.S. backed a rebel group(Contras) to fight socialist Nicaraguan governance (Sandinistas).
• The Boland Amendment (1982–1984) banned them to.
• Reagan officials proceeded illegal channeling to fund the Contras.
• In 1986 the Exposure brought Public Outrage.
• A Lebanese newspaper exposed the arms-for-hostages deal with initial gov denial then investigations proving allegations.
• Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and National Security Advisor John Poindexter, took the fall.
• Congressional hearings in 198 revealed deception extent 7.

Ethical Issues at Stake

• The case reveals the ethical issues about political deception and democratic accountability.

Ethical Theories & Tests to Apply

• Justifications by Bok argue for justification by public justification of deception, it needs public justification to be exhausted, all while also lying but having ethical security.

• No public consent, alternative diplomatic channels, scandal leads to public scandal.

• Kants belief is Lying always means people treat others not as ends, moral rules must be universalized, with no trust.

• The government had to treat citizens/Congress right, deception could break down, if not democratic rule wouldn't follow.

• Application to Deception included positive results: Helpping the Contras in Nicaragua/Accelerating Hostages release, strengthening U.S. influence in Latin American. Harms/Negatives include:Public trust loss/Violation of laws (Boland Amendment and arms embargo), dangerous precedent for future operations, no significant Nicaraguan war change.

• Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)/deceptive justified if better end, deception of immoral concequences.

Final Evaluation:

• Bok's Justification/No Approval, alternatives ignored
• Lying is always immoral
• Harm

Final Verdict:

• Affiar was all unethical, bad tests, hurt democracy.
• Eroded trust in management/oversight/credibility.
• Utilitarian Deception - Backfired.

Exam Strategy is listed as:

• Define the Ethical Problem
• Apply Ethics
• Deception failed Consequ/Kantian Ethins
• Conclusion
• Deception-bad frame/administration
• oversight/policy

Final Key Take-aways:

• Affair was a major political one
• Ethincally bad/good results/causing better moral than good
• Highlight the risk

Deception & Informed Consent (Denver Income Maintenance Experiment)

Historical Context

• The Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (DIME) was a test between the 1960s and 1980s to see the impact of the Negative Income Tax.
• The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) saw influence that the guaranteed income impacts behavioral economics.

Key Features of DIME:

• The Negative Income Tax meant families below the income level received direct cash payments, unlike welfare.
• The goal was to provide financial safety while following incentivized incentives.
• Income families were randomly selected, employment behavior tracked, aimed to inform future policy, ethic with the risk.

Ethical Issues at Stake

• key questions/informed consent/government
• Limits
• financial incentives
• Obligation
• Policies

Theories of Apply:

• Informed consent test (participants) fully aware of the risks.
• Did understand risks.
• participation was voluntary.
• Gov consent valid

Conclusion:

Failed

Justification :

• Publicly justified

• Non Deceptive

• Passing Ethics

• Full Autonomy

• The long term effect

• Kantian Ethics/Citezns means end

• Conclude Experiment

Analysis:

• The DIME case is ethical by providing aids.
• The end to all consent.
• Government with all info Conclusion/Harm Experiment

Failed test and risks over weighed/harm