When serving the greater good, is it ethical to commit normally unethical acts? For example, would the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which served to end WW2, be considered ethical, despite the killing of many civilians? 

The bigger question, I think, is it unethical to avoid the killing of those innocents and (pretty much invariably) cause MORE damage than if they had been bombed?

It's tricky, and for the love of god, please don't respond with "lol its unethical bye."

---

It is ethical. If doing something does more good in the long run, then it is always more ethical to do that in favor of doing something for immediate results but with possibly grievous consequences. 

---

I dunno and this is the difficult moral question.

Im gonna use the World War 2 as the example and the Nazis killing non Arians in the concentration camps

Was it right for Germany to get attacked and for innocent Germans to get killed?
or 
Should the Nazis just have been able to kill the non Arians with out any other countries getting involved?

I dont think theres the easy answer to it but I does think that the Nazis had to get stopped and if other countries armies couldnt do it peacefully then they had to go and attack

Im not sure if this answers but I dont really think either is eithical but something had to be done  

---

lol its unethical bye.

---

This is limiting to two options only. And should it? would WW2 only end by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It's unethical. Why? because I believe that it's unethical to bomb people, innocent ones, to solve a political problem. So, a third option should have been made, and that would be the ethical thing to do. I think. 

---

"-lka" wrote:

This is limiting to two options only. And should it? would WW2 only end by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's unethical. Why? because I believe that it's unethical to bomb people, innocent ones, to solve a political problem. So, a third option should have been made, and that would be the ethical thing to do. I think. 

Well, all is fair in love and war. 

---

"AlphaT" wrote:

"-lka" wrote:

This is limiting to two options only. And should it? would WW2 only end by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


It's unethical. Why? because I believe that it's unethical to bomb people, innocent ones, to solve a political problem. So, a third option should have been made, and that would be the ethical thing to do. I think. 

Well, all is fair in love and war. 

Says who? 

---

"-lka" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:

"-lka" wrote:

This is limiting to two options only. And should it? would WW2 only end by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



It's unethical. Why? because I believe that it's unethical to bomb people, innocent ones, to solve a political problem. So, a third option should have been made, and that would be the ethical thing to do. I think. 

Well, all is fair in love and war. 

Says who? 

Says me   

---