Good points. I don’t believe the Stoics go for hypotheticals when they amount to many. You give a good example with: “Would you kill an innocent person to save a greater number by pulling a switch and rerouting an out-of-control trolley? Stoics balk at this so-called ‘Trolley Problem,’ and other impractical thought experiments.” If we get bogged with the “if”s, and lose sight of justice and virtue in front of us, we start to over-control the situation. As far as: “The Empire of Japan preferred death to surrender…Something was needed to shock the Japanese from their complacency, and the bombs worked.” Surrender was achieved because the fighting, or the war, was over the moment the bombs detonated—unilaterally. Yes, they never would have surrendered while fighting, even if it cost the Japanese millions of their own lives, but that’s because they were fighting (and killing) Americans. I am not sure this was a Stoic decision, or a Stoic “fight,” as far as the “cosmopolis” is concerned. A weapon of mass destruction dismantles the game of war. Nevertheless, it was the best decision for the President of the United States, representing Americans, to prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from being killed. But not necessarily a Stoic decision.
I don't think there's such a thing as one ultimately Stoic decision — it's more that there's a Stoic decision-making framework, which is centered around virtue.
Yes, the Stoics considered the theoretical sage capable of infalible decisions and choosing the most virtuous option in their situation, but the rest of us Prokoptons are left using reason as best we can, with the four virtues as our compass.
It's easy to say that there was a better "Stoic Decision" that aligned with the thriving of the cosmopolis. But what was it? And where do you draw the line? In not defending yourself and letting your people be slaughtered? In not stepping in to prevent further conquests? In only freeing their conquered territories while leaving their government to reign on their home islands and possibly relaunch their war in a few years once they'd recovered?
As far as I know, Japan had no own energy resources for its growing industry but imported coal and oil. Both were subjected to a total embargo. Japanese retaliated in Pearl Harbor, but their approach was know well in advance to the US military and the big, essential vessels were removed in time...
The resulting images and casualties were the needed "trigger" to convince the populace of the events that followed suit.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "gifted" with an uranium and a plutonium bomb were just a "test case" for curious, highly narcissistic creatures to gather new radiological data about its effects on hard and soft targets.
Despicable from top to bottom, current events in the Near East show that nothing has changed.
Good points. I don’t believe the Stoics go for hypotheticals when they amount to many. You give a good example with: “Would you kill an innocent person to save a greater number by pulling a switch and rerouting an out-of-control trolley? Stoics balk at this so-called ‘Trolley Problem,’ and other impractical thought experiments.” If we get bogged with the “if”s, and lose sight of justice and virtue in front of us, we start to over-control the situation. As far as: “The Empire of Japan preferred death to surrender…Something was needed to shock the Japanese from their complacency, and the bombs worked.” Surrender was achieved because the fighting, or the war, was over the moment the bombs detonated—unilaterally. Yes, they never would have surrendered while fighting, even if it cost the Japanese millions of their own lives, but that’s because they were fighting (and killing) Americans. I am not sure this was a Stoic decision, or a Stoic “fight,” as far as the “cosmopolis” is concerned. A weapon of mass destruction dismantles the game of war. Nevertheless, it was the best decision for the President of the United States, representing Americans, to prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from being killed. But not necessarily a Stoic decision.
I don't think there's such a thing as one ultimately Stoic decision — it's more that there's a Stoic decision-making framework, which is centered around virtue.
Yes, the Stoics considered the theoretical sage capable of infalible decisions and choosing the most virtuous option in their situation, but the rest of us Prokoptons are left using reason as best we can, with the four virtues as our compass.
It's easy to say that there was a better "Stoic Decision" that aligned with the thriving of the cosmopolis. But what was it? And where do you draw the line? In not defending yourself and letting your people be slaughtered? In not stepping in to prevent further conquests? In only freeing their conquered territories while leaving their government to reign on their home islands and possibly relaunch their war in a few years once they'd recovered?
As far as I know, Japan had no own energy resources for its growing industry but imported coal and oil. Both were subjected to a total embargo. Japanese retaliated in Pearl Harbor, but their approach was know well in advance to the US military and the big, essential vessels were removed in time...
The resulting images and casualties were the needed "trigger" to convince the populace of the events that followed suit.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "gifted" with an uranium and a plutonium bomb were just a "test case" for curious, highly narcissistic creatures to gather new radiological data about its effects on hard and soft targets.
Despicable from top to bottom, current events in the Near East show that nothing has changed.
It's all about power and greed ...