Often in discussions regarding the fate of a vast number of individuals, a utilitarian viewpoint is adopted, and both sides of the discussion will seek an outcome that will benefit the majority of those involved. This framework is only scraping the surface, however, and prevents the analysis of the motives behind an action (in this example, the killing of over 100,000 Japanese civilians). This is an extremely important factor in these types of debates. These discussions warrant deontological ethics, more specifically Kantianism. In this mindset, one considers not only the aftermath that results from an action, but the will behind this action and the behavior that comes with it. In other words, an outcome of an act is not good unless the intentions …show more content…
However, this line of thinking encourages the assumption that the only alternatives involved violent invasions. It is often forgotten that America was given a chance to peaceful end the war with surrender from Japan. A nation consumed by war, considerably losing to American forces, Japan had attempted numerous times to negotiate with the Russians for a peace settlement with the United States. American cryptographers had decoded these missives sent from Japan to Russia, and therefore had intel that the Japanese were willing to surrender. In one particular missive, dated July 22, 1945, the Japanese reported: “… [We] are seeking a peace which is not so-called un-conditional surrender through the good offices of Russia. It is necessary that we exert ourselves so that this idea will be finally driven home to the Americans and the British.” [1]. Aware that the Japanese were seeking means for a peaceful end to the war but would not accept unconditional surrender, the United States decided not to negotiate with Japan over the means of surrender, but rather release the Potsdam Declaration on behalf of themselves, Great Britain, and the Nationalist Government of China. This ultimatum outlined the terms of unconditional surrender for the Japanese, demanding them to dismantle their military and dethrone their emperor (the latter was not directly stated, although implied in the point that “the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest” must be eliminated) [2]. The Declaration demanded these rules to be followed in full, or destruction for the nation of Japan would be insured. Logically, Japan would not agree to these demands, as their military was their