Well, seeing as how Japan did not formally surrender when the first bomb was dropped, it almost seemed necessary, like they wouldn't give up, even after being nuked. The second bomb was definitely kicking them while they were down. I still, however, think it was a bad decision.
Hypothetical question: If Hitler had known that a Jewish individual would rise to power and kill off half of the Earths population, and enslave the majority of the other half, would it justify his actions in that he was accountable for 6 million Jewish deaths?
It's better to do the "right" thing.
Of course you have to see it in a global context. To do one right thing now and a much worse thing later might be the "wrong" thing. So, this is really just an interesting question on a local basis. As long as you consider all results the "right" thing, is by definition better. "Better" of course relates to the person that the thing is "right" for.
No one can see all the future possible effects of what they do. Any foresight would only be of primary and relatively soon effects. You can't blame someone for not being omnipresent. I mean if Hitler's grandfather got married to be happy and make himself and his wife happy, would you blame him?
Good versus evil matters on intentions, and not on foresight or predictability. If a person kills an assassin out of cold blood and anger that was going to kill an important political figure for peace, it would be a "good" thing, but it is still clearly evil. It wasn't done to be benevolent. Alternatively, if someone was non lethally poisoned in their bloodstream, and a kindhearted oaf honestly thought the individual was "too full of bad blood" and severed an artery of the poisoned person to help them, but they ended up dying from the cut (and not the poison). It is done out of "good" and the lack of foresight on the issue is just an exaggerated sense of what none of us can see on the grand scale: the future.
Originally posted by crazylozer
It is better for the good of all that the right thing occurs, no matter what motivation was behind it. However, one who does the wrong thing for the right reasons is likely the better person.
...blow for two reasons:
Originally posted by chithappens
what is bad intention
There is no such thing.
How the hell did this get skipped over?
and
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's better to do the "right" thing.Of course you have to see it in a global context. To do one right thing now and a much worse thing later might be the "wrong" thing. So, this is really just an interesting question on a local basis. As long as you consider all results the "right" thing, is by definition better. "Better" of course relates to the person that the thing is "right" for.
Long story short, good and bad are relative terms with no universal answer. No sides in war would EVER agree on what is a good intention in their particular war.