This is just a note to direct your attention to PJTV, where Bill Whittle has a really excellent video piece about the use of atomic weapons on Japan during WWII, after comedian Jon Stewart opined that our use of them constituted a war crime.  (Hat Tip, LGF.)
TNC Authors
Whittle’s response to Stewart was packed full of historical information and well presented. But in the beginning of his presentation, Whittle makes the point that America warned Japan of the attack by dropping millions of leaflets. If we didn’t warn them would that have made the bombings immoral? According to the Objectivist ethics I don’t think so. But Whittle, who is a Christian I think, seemed to think our warning the Japanese was important in legitimizing the bombings. That was the only thing that I questioned. The rest of the video was excellent however.
Max, I think Whittle was responding directly to Stewart’s, and many other liberals, allegations.
Regardless, I’m not sure, even in Objectivist ethics, that dropping the leaflets was such a bad thing. We still achieved our goal, and possibly prevented thousands more deaths by dropping the leaflets. Even if the people had completely abandoned the towns, we would have achieved our war goal of shutting down the Japanese manufacturing in those towns.
If we had dropped the bombs without warning, Whittle proves the point that the Japanese reaction would have been what it was anyway. Arguably, a surprise bombing might have had the opposite effect, making the Japanese even more stubborn to fight until the end in a hopeless cause. But that’s admittedly speculative.
Thanks for posting that link, Chuck. Excellent presentation by Mr. Whittle.
The only minor quibble I had with it, and it does not bear upon the subject matter, was the typical negative use of the term “selfish” applied to John Stewart at the end. If Mr. Whittle properly understood selfishness, he’d know that Stewart and all Leftists are actually selfless, and that is precisely why they do not respect the rights of others.
No one does except Objectivists, C.T. Don’t get too annoyed about it, or you’ll spend a lot of time being annoyed.
Inform people of their mistake, by all means, but the subversion of the concept “selfishness” has been nuclear-bunkerbusted into the public mind. It’ll take some time to fix.
It should be noted that to his credit Stewart apologized for the comment.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225918&title=harry-truman-was-not-a-war
The video did an excellent job of eviscerating that idea.
C.T., I’m not so sure how selfless Leftists truly are. While they claim to be, they always seem to find themselves in situations where they can easily be called selfish.
Ed,
The term is being used in a specific sense – we’re not talking about whether the average leftist would sell out his principles for short term gain. (although that, too, is selfless)
What he means is that Leftists are driven, at the very core, by what other people think. Supposing that some Leftist steps over his brother man to achieve his goals. What goals are those? Some swanky apartment in a trendy area with fashionable clothes and furniture that are eco-approved? He’s still a slave to the opinions and fashions of others – thus acting self-LESS-ly.
To be selfish, one has to have goals of one’s own. One has to have opinions of one’s own. One has to be driven, internally, by one’s own thoughts and conclusions about the truth and not simply impelled by external forces and the opinions of others.
Take the Clintons – the modern lexicon would call them selfish – lying, cheating, stealing to get their way. But what is that “way?” Being popular? Having power? The power to do what, exactly? To do what they want? Hardly – they’d only have the power to carry out the mob-rule politics on which they ran. They’d be ever the slaves of what the Left said they had to do.
In short, Objectivism rejects the modern categorization of “selfishness” as someone who will hurt others to obtain some goal. You have to examine the issue philosophically – who is setting the goals at all? Their own mind and their own judgment? Or something else?