World War Two was ended when the Japanese surrendered on September 2, 1945. Their decision to surrender came as a direct result from the dropping of two nuclear bomb on two of their cities, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, by the United States. The decision to drop these bombs was made by President Truman. Whether or not this decision was morally correct has been debated. G.E.M Anscombe believes that Truman’s decision was morally wrong. This essay will first of all explain her argument and then it will be evaluated. Anscombe’s main reason for believing that Truman’s decision was morally incorrect is her reasoning that killing innocent lives as a means to an end is murder and since murder is one of the worst actions it is immoral. Thus, Truman’s decision …show more content…
Her argument is valid because it is supported by her reasoning. Her main argument that killing people as a means to an end is murder is correct because using human life as a way to achieve some goal is not right and therefore immoral. If using life as a means is murder and immoral then Truman’s decision was immoral because he did exactly that. He used the lives of the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a means to an end. The end being ending World War Two. Moving on to her point of unconditional love in which she says this was the root of the evil it is also valid because she brings evidence that supports this idea. Anscombe says that Japan tried to negotiate peace two times and that both of these times were denied because unconditional surrender was wanted. If the idea of unconditional surrender was not so heavily desired there could have been a peace negotiation which would have avoided the dropping of the bombs. These two ideas of using life as a means to an end and unconditional surrender are two interesting ideas when talked about in the context of was. During war, ideologies change and sometime the line between right and wrong can be difficult to draw. Anscombe talks about this when she is talking about who are the innocent people during a war, but nevertheless she believes the civilians of these two cities were innocent. In her article she makes a