In G.E.M Anscombe’s “Truman Degree,” she writes a pamphlet in which she responds to the chance of Truman receiving an honorary degree from the University of Oxford. Throughout this pamphlet, Anscombe argues that Truman should not receive this degree because of the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I will argue that Anscombe’s pamphlet against Truman and his degree is not a good one. In this essay, I will explain why Anscombe doesn’t want Truman to receive this degree based on Anscombe’s picture of intentional action, argue that this reasoning is invalid, and then consider an objection of my own to explore Anscombe’s criticism of utilitarianism. Anscombe believes Truman should not be receiving an honorary degree for such an effortless task. …show more content…
Anscombe wasn’t the only person that didn’t want Truman to earn this honorary degree, some higher institutions were debating to give him the degree and stated, “We do not approve of the action; we think it was a mistake, but Truman didn’t make the bombs!
He did not decide to drop them without consulting anyone. He didn’t do anything, in fact, except make the decision; hang it all, you can’t hold a man responsible for making decisions!” (3-4). Anscombe believes that Truman did think clearly about the decision he made and knew the end that was in sight. This is where Anscombe gets into her picture of intentional action, in class we discussed an example of baking a cake. To bake a cake, you need to go through certain steps to make a great cake. There must be a correct amount of ingredient, the oven must be set to the correct temperature, and so on. The idea is that the person sets an end and is aware of the steps that are necessary to bring about that end. That person realizes they are the cause of something but, if the cake is bad, then the blame is all on the person who baked the cake, even though maybe other people helped in some areas. If someone becomes very sick from eating the cake then it was not intentional to get that person sick, but everyone looks at the person who baked the cake is at fault. This example is very similar to Truman’s …show more content…
situation in calling in the bombs because he didn’t build the bombs himself, but he precedes over every worker involved in making these bombs. So, his decision completely rides on his shoulders and Anscombe believes he made the wrong decision. This decision relies on Truman because at the time, he was the president of the United States and made executive decisions. Also, Truman didn’t personally drop the bombs himself, but he ordered men below him to deal with dropping the bombs which makes him responsible because the idea of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki originated from him. It does not matter who did it because Truman is guilty for his decision he made. Overall, Anscombe thinks that Truman shouldn’t have placed evil among these two cities to help the United States chances of winning World War II (WWII). In Anscombe’s mind, this act was cowardly and took no effort. Truman may have looked like a cowardly figure after this decision in some citizen’s eyes, but I object to their views because what other decision could he have made? Would we have sent troops to Japan and fight this on battleground? No, we would’ve lost thousands of soldiers, and we had already lost several more thousands throughout the war! He did what he needed to for our country to keep its dominant status, and this decision ultimately ended the war. He wanted to send out a message to other countries that the U.S. should not be messed with. It was so important to do this because other countries we were battling against recognized this. This was needed for the whole country because people were feeling vulnerable and terrified of what was occurring during WWII. Why would he want to look inferior? What if he had sent troops to Japan and it completely failed? Then people would have wished he would have done something different. He was very courageous in making this decision because he thought of his country before himself, which is required of a president. America needed to maintain its dominance and the correct decision was made by Truman. A person can look courageous by most people for making a decision that the majority of people in the world wouldn’t make.
Anscombe believes that Truman was not courageous because one cannot “do evil so that good may come.” Anscombe is saying that one cannot be a courageous killer and be glorified for killing innocent civilians. Truman was morally wrong, and his morale should be questioned after those bombings. Anscombe believes that there is no “justified genocide” and that Truman’s actions display his character. More Importantly, just because the bombings brought forth a “good end” does not mean it was the morally right thing to do. Doing something wrong to be able to produce something good should never be the answer. For example, if someone wants to rob a bank to get money quick then they are comparable to Truman. A bank robber robs a bank to get money quick, but it is morally wrong and is against the law and Truman ended the war quick by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was not morally correct because he killed thousands of innocent people. Killing is wrong in-and-of-itself and Anscombe is trying to let the world know that. Just because someone makes an executive decision does not mean they are
courageous. Anscombe attacks Truman’s decision in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki through a pamphlet she wrote. Anscombe repeatedly claims that Truman should not be receiving a degree for his “courageous actions.” Although Anscombe may think this, he had to make the decision he did for the United States and made the choice for America’s best interest. War was not healthy for anyone serving in the war or even living in the United States. At the same time, Anscombe wants people to realize that murder is not okay in any form. She argues that a courageous man is not one who promotes killing in any form. She is right in saying that a man who promotes killing is cowardly, but that is not what he is doing. He is promoting dominance and keeping America at the top of the food chain, so people realize we are a force to be reckoned with. Therefore, Anscombe gives valid points for her argument, but in reality, Truman did what was best for his fellow Americans.
But he wasn?t decisive and convicted enough to go all out. Maybe it was because Truman made many decisions regarding Korea based on the assumption that he thought that the Soviets were more involved than they actually were; in retrospect, if he hadn?t had those suspicions, he may not have been so cautious about driving Asian communism into the ground was the best course of action.
“Truman, Harry S.” The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia: Columbia, 1994. Online. Internet. Available at HTTP: http://www.historychannel.com/. 24 Sept. 2001.
In Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker provides the reader with an elaborate analysis of President Truman’s decision behind using the atomic bomb in Japan. He provokes the reader to answer the question for himself about whether the use of the bomb was necessary to end the war quickly and without the loss of many American lives. Walker offers historical and political evidence for and against the use of the weapon, making the reader think critically about the issue. He puts the average American into the shoes of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America and forces us to think about the difficulty of Truman’s decision.
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
Truman’s accomplishments in his domestic policy were impressive, considering the hardships the nation was experiencing as World War II came to an end, and the resistance of Congress (which was greatly made up of Republicans and conservatives) to liberalism. The president was able to pas...
Walker, J. Samuel. Prompt and Utter Destruction Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan, Revised Edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2005. Print.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
The benefits that the bomb had on our society have been invaluable. Permitting the use of the atomic bomb was an atrocious mistake.In John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, he interviews a German priest serving in Japan. This priest, Father Kleinsorge, provides a first hand account of the immorality, justification, and consequences thereof; “The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable even when it s...
Maddox, Robert. “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb.” Taking Sides: Clashing View in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras & James SoRelle. 15th ed. New York, NY. 2012. 280-288.
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
Despite not having any prior experience with foreign policy, Truman had managed to end the war in the first six months of his term. The first example of Truman’s contribution to the war was in 1941, while he was Senator of Missouri. Truman created the Senate Special Committee To Investigate The National Defense Program, or as it’s commonly referred to as, the Truman Committee. This saved the government $15 billion dollars, exposed corruption in the defense industry, shed light on shortages of rubber, aluminum, and other strategic war materials, called manufacturers to account for bad work, prodded labor leaders to discourage strikes, and streamlined federal contract practices. The panel staged 732 hearings on a wide range of subjects—steelmaking, shipping losses, housing construction, labor shortages, camp construction, etc. They also produced 51 committee reports, each one unanimously approved by Democrats and Republicans on the panel. Truman's skillful handling of the panel, which managed to be critical of the Roosevelt administration withou...
The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan were ethical decisions made by President Harry Truman and the United States government. By the time of the atom bomb was ready, the U.S. had been engaged in military conflict for over four years and lost over 400,000 soldiers. Truman claimed, "We would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved" (Winkler 18). The bomb was aimed at ending the war immediately and avoiding prolonged battle in the Pacific Theater and the inevitable invasion of Japan. President Truman hoped that by showing the Japanese the devastating weapon the U.S. possessed, that the war could be brought ...
What Truman is portraying is the idea that if the government silences its people, then the people will forever live in fear of the government. Truman supported the freedom of speech because he believed that people should have the right to express themselves. A question comes to rise from this belief though- should a person be limited to what beliefs they can
Because Truman was being manipulated for most of his life, he had never experienced true freedom. For example, Christof could never allow him to leave the island of Seahaven because if he did he would discover the truth and ruin the TV show. The writers of the show tried to nip Truman’s enthusiasm for travel in the bud such as when he announced to the class that he wanted to be an explorer when he grew up. The teacher immediately told him that he was too late for everything had already been discovered. A few years later, something more drastic was called for and they decided to write Truman’s father out of The Truman Show in a boating a...
If the Truman Show were to really take place, then the Star would never, or at least have great trouble, spotting the inconsistencies because he has no frame of reference, no other standard to compare his world to. The inconsistences only exist for the viewer and the cast. Truman will not suspect a thing and will come to treat them as a natural occurrence if they happen regularly. Even irregular, rare instances will not give lead for Truman to question his world, although it will catch him by surprise. The director would need to give him an opportunity to leave the set, which is not likely to happen as it