touch foxglove NOW 
Alright, no more discussion of the limits of free trade. Let's talk about technology. I saw a lively debate on here between @TheTroubleWithPibbles,
@August,
@Geralt_of_Uganda, etc, about whether it is ethical to develop technologies...
Scenario
This, of course, actually happened
J. Robert Oppenheimer was a brilliant scientist.
being so brilliant, he was able to conceive of, and help build, the greatest weapon known to mankind - the atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer, of course, didn't know the long term consequences of developing such a weapon - but he understood the sheer destructive potential of such a device.
Your question is: Was Oppenheimer acting ethically by assisting to develop the atomic bomb?
NOTE: In this hypothetical, history is at a crossroads. You don't know what will happen in the future - whether the device you created will be used to end life on earth or to usher in a new golden age.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is developing a nuclear bomb not commendable, you silly cute twinks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is creating a weapon that has the potential to destroy the Earth in any way commendable?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
*potential. Vaccines have the potential to cause harm too; therefore, they're not commendable. (You) =
Have fun celebrating the post-WW2 world of bigger wars, ya immoral nigro.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Bomb kills people, simple as
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kills people?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Wasn't talking to you, HeyMoon.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you replied to my post, idiot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is developing a nuclear bomb not commendable, you silly cute twinks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Irrelevant. The atom bomb was already being worked on and would have eventually been developed with or without his involvement.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Uh-huh, and who built it? Him and his team, so they deserve praise.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's neither commendable no deplorable. It's just a fact of the universe that a sufficiently advanced species will discover fission and that there will be power struggles with "revolutionary" weapons ie guns, explosives, etc. regardless of the technologies we develop so making a weapon from nuclear fission is just a neutral, natural outcome of being a sentient species
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Itβll be a neutral, natural outcome too when the people who suffered most from nuclear weapons eventually take their revenge + interest (using nuclear weapons).
There are groups on planet earth who are very committed and motivated to this! A clear fact that they are at work, since the original bomb holders are becoming a bit nervous and paranoid at world events. They expand control, hoping to find the attack before it happens. Good luck, search all over!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Same goes for vaccines.
No wonder you got the question wrong!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes. And?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More nukes --> less wars, less deaths.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
he didn't know that at the time
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
We don't know that yet...
Nuclear annihilation is still a possibility
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I donβt care. Itβs a paradox. Death cult, when they feed into it theyβll get their hands caught into their own trap. More nukesβ> different kind of wars β> more deathsβ> more economic growth (which fights climate change) β> less human spirit β> zorg future
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Think of it in terms of risk (probability of bad event * "damage", such as lives lost). So far, nuclear armed countries haven't gone directly to war with each other, so it's panning out better than the pre-MAD world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This isnβt the only measure of if things are going well. Itβs also no guarantee that the scenario would never will in the future.
The original vision of nukes was theyβd usher in total peace, hegemony, unity of people. That didnβt happen, so instead the cope version is just that the worst case scenario hasnβt happened (yet). Not as comforting as it could be!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
100s of million not dead over 80 years of post-WW2 battles among major powers is a much better tradeoff.
Nothing is guaranteed, so that's pointless.
Last paragraph is nonsense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
btw I only voted that way for drama, as always Machiavellian is right
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You don't get to my position without feigning remorse.
It had to be done, but we allow others to save face by not revelling in it nor condemning/lauding the contributions of those who enabled it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're the first to get thrown into the meat grinder.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'ma go with ethical on this one.
I'll leave out the ethics of using the bomb entirely because that's a whole different quagmire. Oppenheimer absolutely 100% knew what they were going to use the bomb for. I agree with the meme image that he shouldn't have signed up for the task if he had an ethical problem with it, and he shouldn't pretend he was surprised by the outcome.
However, if he hadn't participated someone else would have. The atom bomb was inevitable. Thus, his participation was ethically neutral, aside from being an annoying cute twink about it afterwards.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
it clearly didn't.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
yeah and look how well that worked out
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think the US occupation and subsequent cultural influence drawn from American culture is primarily responsible for anime. However if it weren't cartoons, japs would purvey their s*x pervert id through some other form of popular entertainment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
they'd just continue raping the koreans and chinese
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I love my nukes
Don't take them away. I can't wait till I can exterminate the white nazi race by nuking the western world off the face of they/them parent earth.
Glory to russia!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Why do you give us the reasoning for each answer along with each answer? Do you not understand the concept of people coming to the same conclusion in different ways?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Don't overthink it. A lot of people can't conceive of alternatives to their preferred moral framework, this is just to stimulate discussion
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I dont understand the question. What would be evil? Nuclear bombs?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If Oppenheimer did not develop the bomb, it would be evil
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What a kitty
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"Get this cry baby cute twink out of here"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
@ truman
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Very unethical. He should have actively sabotaged the effort or helped Germany make nukes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Where's my fricking crayons?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nuclear bombs created peace between super powers that the world has never seen before.
Still a good chance someone eventually goes mad king and kills all of us but we would probably do it anyway without them.
Q.E.D. the temporary benefit is worth it as the ending consequences are inevitable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
If I don't do it first the enemy might get it and wipe us all out what an ethical conundrum
Edit: while also developing a tech that effectivelly stopped the existance of wars between major powers that used to cause tens of millions of deaths woe is me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
MOST Ethical because it ushered in an era of absolute NATO dominance through precision weaponry
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Frick'em all'
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
it was extremely ethical because he did it for the US. if he was working for any other country it would be unethical and he should be put to death.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
haven't nuclear weapons ushered in like the most peaceful part of modern human history? like i know it COULD go wrong someday and millions of people could die but that doesn't mean that it will, and millions already did die in WW1 & 2 (allegedly) without nuclear weapons. I think it's pretty dumb to argue if its ethical or not because obviously there is no answer but sure happy he was American and not someone else who made it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm neutral
, but it is funny how he went all emo after dunking on the japs. Like what did he think was going to happen 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
chaotic-ethical: If Oppenheimer didn't lead the project, the atomic bomb probably would have been developed on a similar or slightly delayed timeline anyway, but if he didn't then somebody else who might not have used this clout to warn people about it's apocalyptic potential on TV may have headed the project. The correct moral stance was to do it for clout, and use the clout ethically later when people wanted you on their TV shows.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm sure if he didn't do it some other fricked up technology would've left everyone on edge after world war 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
IDIOT. It is ethical. Oppenheimer had no idea how the weapon was going to be used - he created it, and left it to the hands of the military to decide how to use it. He didn't kill anyone.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
NUMBNUTS. It is unethical. You say he didn't know how the weapon was going to be used, but he did - he knew it was going to be used to kill people. He enabled the government to use this weapon of mass destruction, and they did - the responsibility is solely upon him (and the other collaborators).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
~80 years after their development nuclear bombs have saved millions, possibly billions more lives than they ever took. Unless we actually get a nuclear war scenario thereβs nothing but positives towards its development
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's the thread that this whole assumption of it 'saving lives' hangs on. If you truly believe that from 1945 all the way into the far future, up until the extinction of our species nuclear weapons will not be used in a mass scale war, then you are gullible as frick but so be it, I can see the rationale. If however you accept that such a conflict is bound or likely to happen at some point in the future, then you have to weigh this unmeasurable quantity of 'hypothetical lives saved' against lives actually taken.
I am not a huge fan of the 'MAD saves lives' argument, but I can see merit to it, I agree that for instance lives of many US infantrymen were saved by bombing Japan instead of orchestrating an invasion. To me however the real risk of sending humanity back to stone age far outweighs it. We have other methods of keeping world peace that we did not have during the previous world wars and unlike MAD we can actually see them used in practice. I do not believe that we would be here killing each other right now had this one piece of technology not been invented
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What if the chinx built one first ?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Korea, Japan and Vietnam will be radioactive wastelands.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lol except you cannot prove something did not happen because of your intervention, you can only say what did happen. And what did happen post 1945 is not much to be proud of, instead many agree there is much to be ashamed and disgusted over. Maybe nuclear bombs saved us from a worse fate, but the
has to be understood as complete cope, since the ideas and original plan of the Americans for the bomb failed.
If things worked out the way originally envisioned it could be different, instead proliferation happened too much. You can see Americaβs fear and paranoia over this in world events, the constant balancing and vigilance is exhausting
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Only brainlets require proof beyond all reasonable debate. It'll get you nowhere because the same can be applied to your position.
Good luck in undergrad.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My comment has more upmarseys than yours, this is proof beyond reasonable debate that Iβm smarter than you are, and understand the nature of the problem perfectly
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
π€π€π€
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The horrors of total war were completely erased, all war now occurs between non-nuclear powers or through small proxy battles and economic pressure, with nuclear weapons never being used in anger since their creation. R-slurs all over the globe are free to debate the ethics of the event with each other over a worldwide cooperative communications network.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If it wasn't him it'd be someone else.
Adm. Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, expressed some regret later in life.
Rickover deserves his own effectpost, he would personally interview every officer for nuke school and would go out on every new nuclear submarine. He would make candidates stand in a closet for hours if they answered a question wrong during the interview and if they gave him pitted grapes on a sub he'd spit them out on the floor.
He's worth a Google if you've got time to kill and his first name is Hyman.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
How long did Oppenheimer plan that sweet "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" line?
Chat GPT buys Oppenheimer's bullshit.
How long do you think Oppenheimer planned to say "I am death, the destroyer of worlds" to seem cool?
It is likely that Oppenheimer did not plan to say the phrase at all. He was reportedly quoting a line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, as he witnessed the first successful atomic bomb test in 1945. He was expressing his mixed feelings of awe and horror at the destructive power of nuclear weapons.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It is a pretty sweet quote.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Isn't a more accurate translation something along the lines of "I am time, that which makes death of all things?"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's a much cooler quote in general and a much more r-slurred one in this specific context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Well glad someone fixed it for him if that's the case.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
He also misquoted the line, which is I have become time, the destroyer of worlds.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Two weeks
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context