Anscombe's Moral Case Against Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision
This paper examines G.E.M. Anscombe's ethical critique of President Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as articulated in Anscombe's 1958 essay "Mr. Truman's Degree." Drawing on Anscombe's moral philosophy, the paper argues that targeting civilian populations constitutes murder regardless of the strategic ends sought, that the justification of lives saved is speculative and disingenuous, and that unconditional surrender was an unjustifiable goal pursued through unjustifiable means. The paper also addresses counterarguments—including the "greater good" defense—and concludes that Truman's decision represented an act of tyranny rather than moral imperative, with lasting consequences for global militarism.
- Introduction: Anscombe's Charge Against Truman: Anscombe condemns bomb drop as deliberate murder
- Killing the Innocent as a Means to an End: Moral law forbids killing innocents as instrument
- The Disingenuousness of the 'Lives Saved' Argument: Lives-saved justification rests on unprovable assumptions
- The Greater Good Defense and Its Consequences: Greater-good argument fueled dangerous nuclear arms race
- Conclusion: Tyranny Disguised as Moral Imperative: Truman's ends were unjustifiable, act was tyranny
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Stays closely tethered to the primary source, quoting Anscombe directly and interpreting each passage before moving to broader argument.
- Addresses multiple counterarguments (lives saved, turnabout is fair play, the greater good) rather than ignoring opposing views, which strengthens the paper's persuasive force.
- Connects the historical event to an enduring consequence—nuclear proliferation—showing that the argument has stakes beyond a single moment in 1945.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models close textual analysis of a philosophical primary source. It quotes Anscombe, paraphrases the logic, tests it against counterarguments, and then synthesizes a position—demonstrating how to build an argumentative essay from a single philosophical text rather than from a broad literature review.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by establishing Anscombe's central claim and the historical context, then devotes one paragraph each to: (1) the moral law against killing innocents, (2) the "lives saved" justification, (3) the "greater good" defense and the nuclear arms race it produced, and (4) a conclusion tying Anscombe's refusal to honor Truman back to the paper's thesis. Each paragraph advances a distinct sub-argument before handing off to the next.
Introduction: Anscombe's Charge Against Truman
As G.E.M. Anscombe notes in her essay criticizing Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intention was "to kill the innocent as a means to an end" (3)—the end being the unconditional surrender of Japan and the termination of World War II on terms favorable to the West. The question of whether those means were moral leads to another question: whether the West's desired end could have been achieved by any other means. Anscombe points out that Truman's policy of making war on the innocent stood in stark contrast to his earlier policy of ensuring that "civil populations would not be attacked" (1). With the war almost at an end, Truman decided to demonstrate the full force of American military power by detonating two atomic bombs over Japan.
The act was merciless and oriented toward a doctrine of shock and awe—not toward bringing about a lasting peace. Thus, even though Anscombe accepts the argument that the bombing saved American lives, this does not excuse the fact that it was a deliberate act of murder. As Anscombe writes, "the lives of the innocent are the actual point of society, so the fact that in some other way they may be a nuisance (troublesome to look after, for example) does not justify the state in getting rid of them….[T]he blood of the innocent cries to heaven for vengeance" (6). For that reason alone, it is justified to view the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan as an act of mass murder—one that should be condemned, and for which America and those who honor the action will ultimately be accountable.
Killing the Innocent as a Means to an End
Anscombe is correct to assert that "choosing to kill the innocent as a means to your ends is always murder" (4), since this argument is consistent with the moral and social laws upheld by society regarding the taking of life. Anscombe juxtaposes state-sanctioned methods of life-termination—such as the death penalty—with the act of killing civilians in war to make her point. In the case of the former, the death sentence is given as a form of punishment for a crime committed; the person executed is found guilty of an offense worthy of capital punishment. In the case of the latter, those killed are not judged to have been guilty of any offense. Their only "crime" is that they live in a country at war with another.
Instead of countries fighting on the battlefield, as is the custom of war, one country embarks on a policy of total war—the destruction of everything dear to the enemy, including the lives and cities of its civilian population. While such an action may achieve the victor's desired effect, it cannot be said to constitute a moral means to an end, because it violates the moral and social laws that allow a society to stand in the first place. Without moral and social order, the justification for a nation to assert dominance is replaced by an excuse for tyranny. Truman's action was therefore an act of tyranny, not one of moral imperative.
Conclusion: Tyranny Disguised as Moral Imperative
Truman undermined his own authority and the moral justification of his cause by assuming that hundreds of thousands of innocents must die in order for the merciless objective of unconditional surrender to be achieved. The ends justified the means, he argued. However, the end was itself unjustifiable in the first place, lacking sufficient moral grounding to make it compelling. The end was barbaric, and the means used to obtain it were equally barbarous.
Rather than being remembered as a hero for dropping the bombs, Truman deserves to be described as responsible for mass murder—and that is precisely Anscombe's point in refusing to participate in the ceremony honoring Truman at Oxford. As her essay makes clear, the man had no justification for killing so many innocents, and no honorary degree could confer moral legitimacy on the decision that condemned them.
Works Cited
Anscombe, G. E. M. "Mr. Truman's Degree," 1958. http://www.ifac.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/Anscombe-truman.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.