Tomas 1
Nathan Tomas
Professor McCabe
Phil 1110
22 July 2023
Act Utilitarianism and Kantiansim in Regards to the Truman Dilemma
In this paper, Act Utilitarianism and Kantism will be discussed in the context of Truman’s
usage of the nuclear bomb “Little Boy” on Hiroshima to devastate Japan to the point that they
surrender and back out of the war. Only the dropping of the first bomb and the pros and cons of
it, and criticisms under the lens of each ethical theory will be discussed. Primarily, the loss of
immediate life versus the loss of life caused by the continuation of war will be debated. For the
sake of the argument, it is assumed that all information about the situation is valid and that the
numbers were not manipulated for propaganda or hindsight justifications. Here, it will be
determined that the Katian view has greater moral validity than the utilitarian view in the given
example.
The scenario describes one of the most momentous military decisions of WW2. It was
said the world would be known as having two eras, before nuclear weapons and after. America
was in a desperate battle with the Axis power of Japan, and the president, Harry S. Truman,
found potential use in “The Manhattan Project” started by Roosevelt to utilize nuclear warfare to
crush the morale of Japan, forcing them to surrender. This approach aimed to end the war quickly
in one strike rather than have many more lives lost in a long, drawn-out battle. The likely
alternative to nuclear warfare was Operation Downfall, estimated to lead to 400-800,000 U.S.
dead and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead1. The dropping of “Little Boy” led to the death of 80,000
Japanese, with tens of thousands more dying due to radiation exposure2. The vast majority of
Tomas 2
these deaths are civilians. Truman claims dropping the bomb was the best solution to end the
war. To this day, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been the only two instances of
nuclear warfare. However, the Cold War began soon after nuclear weaponry stole the global
stage. All information mentioned will be found useful as the exchange of life, kinds of life lost,
alternative options, and future outcomes of the bombing of Hiroshima are all relevant.
The Principle of Utility was derived by Jeremy Bentham, who was dubbed the “Father of
Utilitarianism.” Utilitarianism’s foundation is the Principle of Utility which states that if any
action increases happiness or decreases sadness, it is an approvable action. If it decreases
happiness or increases sadness, it’s disapproved. The happiness and sadness referred to are the
net sum of emotions of the collective society with no priority or preference for any person or
group. Bentham sees happiness as synonymous with benefits, pleasure, advantages, and
goodness. Happiness is the ultimate desire because analyzing any desire will lead to the desire
for happiness. All people’s welfare is counted equally in Utilitarianism, and the amount of
happiness gained or lost by individuals can be determined by determining the happiness's
strength, length, likelihood, and instantaneity. For groups, the reliability and scope of the
happiness should also be considered. The action that maximizes the happiness or diminishes the
sadness the most for the largest number of people is then seen as morally correct. The difference
between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism is that Act Utilitarianism analyzes the
morality of actions on a case-by-case basis where all possible actions’ outcomes are considered,
and the most beneficial is taken to be correct. Rule Utilitarianism utilizes rules that tend to
generate large amounts of happiness when followed, and moral actions use these rules instead of
analyzing them on a case-by-case basis. To apply Act Utilitarianism, all possible actions must be
first accounted for. Next, the results of each action should be considered to determine the extent
Tomas 3
to which the promotion of happiness or demotion of sadness is brought for all people involved.
The action promoting the greatest happiness or reducing the most sadness for the most people is
to be isolated. This isolated action is then deemed as the morally correct action to take. Thus, the
consequences of actions under Act Utilitarianism determine if they’re morally acceptable.
Kantianism was established by Emmanuel Kant, who developed two formulations of his
categorical imperative on which his ethical theory is based. He believes absolute moral rules are
generated from reason and that a person acts morally if one acts deliberately and out of moral
duty from Kant’s categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is a command applied
regardless of circumstance or desired fulfillment. It is to be followed regardless of any excuse.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is called the Universal Maxim Principle. This
principle states that one should only act when one believes the basis for that action, also known
as a maxim, can be adopted universally and that the basis for that action would be logically
possible for universal adaptation. This means that if I arbitrarily steal, the maxim I’m acting on is
“I think it’s acceptable to steal,” which, according to Kant, means that I think everyone can steal
at any time. This would lead to the collapse of society, proving that it is a moral rule not to steal,
as it leads to the conclusion that it is logically impossible for such a maxim to be implemented in
a functioning society. The second formulation is that no person should be treated as a means only
but always as an end. These two formulations are different ways of looking at the same
categorical imperative. To treat another as a means is to manipulate another for personal benefit.
It is to see a person as not having intrinsic value but only a value in how they can be used for
personal benefit, and thus it is wrong to treat someone as a means only because a human is no
longer being treated as a human. Treating someone as an end is respecting their autonomy and
ability to create their future. Each human has dreams and desires, and when someone is treated to
Tomas 4
their ends, these dreams and desires are acknowledged and respected. To Kantianism, the
motives behind actions determine their morality.
To determine each moral theory’s view of the Truman Dilemma, the theories will be
compared on the exchange of life, kinds of life lost, alternative options, and future outcomes. Act
Utilitarianism shares similarities with the rationale of Truman when he decided to drop “Little
Boy” on Hiroshima. According to Act Utilitarianism, all possible dealings of Japan should be
considered; the two possible actions will be to drop the bomb or not to drop it. The loss of life
from the bombing came to approximately 80,000 people, with tens of thousands of lives passing
due to exposure related effects. If the bomb had not been dropped, an estimated 400-800,000 US
and 5-10 million Japanese lives could have been lost if not dropped. Because no person or
group's happiness can be prioritized over another, looking at the loss of, say, 100,000 people
versus 7 or 8 million people leads to the dropping of the bomb causing less sadness. Kantianism
would say that if one uses nuclear warfare to win a war to reduce the net casualties of such a war,
then the maxim “I think it is acceptable to use nuclear warfare to reduce war casualties” would
be adopted. Adopting this universally would likely lead to any country with nuclear technology
utilizing it to immediately win wars by destroying countries before they can resist, leading to
radiation wastelands scattering the world and the collapse of countless nations, showing terrible
consequences if the Maxim was utilized universally. In addition, to kill soldiers and civilians
with no chance of resistance or individual surrender only to force the enemy to surrender is using
them as a means only as the soldiers and civilians each have dreams and aspirations that are not
being respected. Neither Utilitarianism nor Kantianism considers any life prioritized; thus, it
matters not whose side loses more people or if the people are soldiers or civilians. The
alternative option was Operation Downfall which is estimated to have resulted in many more
Tomas 5
deaths. Because it resulted in more deaths, it would have led to significantly more sadness,
leading to Utilitarianism opposing this option. Kantiansim would rule this option not as immoral,
as “I think it is acceptable to raid the beaches of a country to seize it” is a maxim that will not
lead to as much conflict if applied universally. The dropping of the bomb could lead to the future
effects of widespread nuclear weapon usage or fearful withdrawal from atomic weaponry.
Suppose the dropping of “Little Boy” leads to the widespread use of nuclear weaponry and the
deaths of more than the alternative Operation Downfall result. In that case, Act Utilitarianism
will then reject bombing. If a fearful withdrawal occurs, then Act Utilitarianism will continue to
agree. Kantianism only truly cares about the motives behind the action to determine its
correctness; therefore, the future effects of the bomb don’t matter to a Kantian. Thus, it is then
concluded that according to Act Utilitarianism, dropping the bomb is moral as it leads to fewer
deaths, but immoral to Kantianism as it fails the first and second formulations of the categorical
imperative. As the writer, I agree most with Kantianism in that when using nuclear warfare, the
floodgates to let others in the future use nuclear warfare are opened. The threat of nuclear war
will heavily influence all future disputes with nations, and eventually, another bomb will be
dropped. Dying without a chance to resist to force a nations surrender, I see as the worst and
most disrespectful kind of sacrifice as autonomy is not respected. I disagree with Act
Utilitarianism as it’s only considering the consequences of how to minimize the total loss of life
without considering the immorality of devastating a city of civilians. I have an issue with it in
that I believe there is a difference between a soldier and a civilian regarding a military-driven
death, and Act Utilitarianism does not agree. I, of course, think it is important to reduce deaths to
as few as possible, however, killing densely-populated city to terrorize a country into surrender is
immoral to me.
Tomas 6
References
1. Naval History and Heritage Command. H-057-1: Operations Downfall and Ketsugo November 1945.
https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gra
m-057/h-057-1.html (Accessed 7/21/23)
2. History. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki
(Accessed 7/21/23)