Throughout history, science has been used to either help or threaten society. With the development of the atomic bomb in particular, science has introduced a way to annihilate the world, if not burden future generations like never seen before. While scientists have always dedicated themselves to explaining and manipulating the world around us, they have often ignored the ethical implications of their discoveries, or just were unable to foresee them.
While they obviously are responsible for their discoveries, scientists are not the only ones to blame for their creations, as they are often not the one’s who use them. When such creations are out of a scientist’s hands, they often have little to no control over how they will be used. Such as with the U.S. military wanting to use the atom bomb before the technology was reproduced by another superpower, thereby asserting a dominant role in the world even after the war had ended. However, when other countries were able to produce nuclear weapons, that advantage would be lost.
Despite any benefits achieved from nuclear science, its primary application still has the ability to destroy life as we know it. As future societies will inevitably inherit their knowledge, not only scientists, but those in power have an ethical obligation to consider the consequences of their discoveries. Humankind has done a lot to benefit themselves through science, yet when they use it inappropriately, they have also brought upon some of humanity’s biggest mistakes. Such as during World War I, when toxic chemicals like mustard gas were used to incapacitate and/or kill whole platoons. More effective than artillery or any other technology known at the time, these gasses resulted in mass amounts of inhumane deaths if not seriously injuring anyone who came near them. While this method were obviously breaking the law of war, it was justified as a way of saving countless lives, if it meant that the war could be ended sooner. This contradictory idea seems to be a reoccurring theme used to justify mass murder as a means of potentially preserving life. Science has and always will have the potential to introduce new and unethical mechanisms that escalate violence, while one’s ingenuity could have improved humanity, are instead cast aside in the pursuit of power, which often brings about violence.
However, as stated before, scientists should not be held responsible for every application of their work, as they are generally not in control of how their creations or discoveries will be used. Moral obligations do not require a scientist to improve society but to at least question their own work from an ethical standpoint. It is when research is deliberately conducted for destructive purposes and then justified as humanitarian that issues arise. It could be that the brutal practices during WWI set a precedent for using nuclear weaponry and carpet bombing in World War II. The technology during that time was slowly becoming inefficient, therefore, a new method was required.
This is a perfect example of the danger unethical politics and science pose to humanity. When exploited, the world is endangered by immoral opportunists as a means for power, who will stop nothing short of destruction and oppression to gain such power. Politicians who are intent on pushing their agendas exploit and manipulate science for their own means, while scientists who are eager to benefit the world have the potential to offer harmful information as well. Ultimately, scientists need to be careful because their works are the primary source for harmful technology.
The products of science do not have an ethical objective, they are not good, bad, or even neutral. They are simply created and used by ethical beings. Their creation and use require a restructuring of society and culture in all its aspects and is, as well, taken into account in the creation of new technologies. An example of this is the atomic bomb. The growth and size of cities, caused by technological development, would have to be considered in the calculation of the impact of the bomb. To have the largest psychological impact, you would need a large enough city to drop such a considerable weapon and so on. These factors must have been made aware by the scientists as they did their calculations.
Nuclear ethics is a field of philosophy that studies the issues brought upon by nuclear energy. In recent studies, it recognizes the issue of nuclear warfare’s feasibility to bring about environmental damage, or even human extinction. Moreover, it considers human extinction and environmental damage to count as moral evils. Another area of this field takes into consideration the impact on future generations and the burden that nuclear waste and pollution imposes on them. Some people in this area of study have concluded that it is therefore morally evil to act in ways that produce these outcomes, which means it is morally evil to engage in nuclear warfare.
Nuclear ethics is also interested in analyzing policies of nuclear deterrence, such as nuclear arms control and disarmament, as well as nuclear energy to such an extent that they are linked to the cause or prevention of nuclear warfare. The ethical ramifications of nuclear warfare have emphasized its role in preventing nuclear war since the end of World War II. Even before the first atomic bombs had been created, the scientists involved in their creation were split over the use of the weapon. The use and justifications of nuclear warfare employed by the U.S. in Japan has been a popular debate and controversy for nearly half a century.
Nuclear warfare is an extremely dangerous and terrorizing tool humans have unlocked, but considering how many wars have been hindered and/or eventually fizzled out, at the threat of utter annihilation is something to take into consideration. If these wars had gone on, they would have gone on to killing exceedingly more people, because if you do start a nuclear warfare, both sides will ultimately lose, and not just in the sense of military loss, but most if not all citizens on either side will have suffered directly from the consequences of nuclear war. It is why the Cold War was not fought directly but instead by means of proxy, it is why there has been no true, direct conflict in the Middle East, and why Pakistan and India have ended their fighting as well. Even in the one instance of the use atomic bombs as a weapon, they were used to stop a land invasion by U.S forces into Japan which would have likely resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, which were prevented through their use. If you consider all of the potential conflicts that have been prevented because of atomic bombs and over all of those who have, or would have potentially died because of them, it would still come out to a positive.
The Japanese have always held themselves to a standard of honor, so to surrender would be inconceivable to them, because of their pride, an invasion would have likely ended up killing more people on both sides. To this day, the U.S. government still gives out purple hearts that were made before the invasion due to the expected casualty rate that would have occurred if they had gone through with the mainland invasion. It is widely accepted that the Japanese casualty rate would have also been significantly more than the casualties brought upon by the bombs. The U.S. had tried several times to try and work out a deal with Japan, but a compromise was never agreed upon. Japan’s culture of unyielding honor and pride would be their downfall. The U.S. did not want a repeat of the atrocities experienced on D-Day, which resulted in the death of countless soldiers. It was after many failed attempts to strike up an agreement that the U.S. concluded that ending the war with one fell swoop was the best choice. And so the atomic bombs were dropped, decimating the Japanese population, yet also saving many lives as well as years of war and conflict, not only on both sides, but also in countries such as Korea and China, who would no longer have to endure the brutality of Japanese occupation. The longer this war went on, the more people were going to die all across the world.