Presidential Decision-Making: Utilitarianism vs Duty Ethics

[Philosophy Now]

Michael Rockler compares two ethics of statemanship for two American presidents.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/64/Pres ... uty_Ethics

[John]

I'm not convinced that the implementation of The Marshall Plan can be viewed purely, or at all, as an application of the categorical imperative. There were many reasons why the USA had a direct interest in the rebuilding of Europe not least of all a fear of communist dominance.

[spike]

Perhaps the Marshall Plan decision was based on the Kantian categorical imperative, out of decency and the right thing to do. But to sell its merits to Congress and the American people its possible a utilitarian argument was used, like, as the above mentioned, defending Europe from communism. Another utilitarian argument that may have been made to gain support for it was that if America left Europe to drift and remain impoverished the likely hood of it cultivating another Hitler that could wage future wars would be greatly enhanced. Also, it could have been argue that a health, friendly Europe would someday make a great trading partner for American.

If something like the Marshall Plan, for what ever reason, had been implemented after the first world war and Germany had not been forced to pay reparations, that might have greatly cut the chances of there being a second world war.

I have made a utilitarian argument about the use of the atomic bomb to end the war with Japan. I say, if that weapon had not been used then humans would have used it at some later date because all weapons ever invented have eventually been utilized. As it happens, though, it helped end a war in an expedient manner. And the visuals of the aftermath and destruction of that weapon may have served a good cause and was probably enough to get the world together in supporting a United Nations. And from that moment the world may have been refrained from ever using the atomic bomb again.