-
Oppenheimer And A Moral Dilemma
I recently watched a movie (oppenheimer) that presented a moral dilemma: Is it justifiable to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in a laboratory test to prevent a futuristic war and reduce its intensity? I’m curious about your perspective on this ethical conundrum. How can we approach such a situation ethically, considering the potential benefits of averting a catastrophic future versus the profound concerns about intentionally taking innocent lives? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter and discuss the broader implications of ethical decision-making.
Thank you for your time and insights. -
2 Replies
-
Oppenheimer And A Moral Dilemma
updated 1 year, 3 months ago
2 Members
·
2
Replies
-
As per Islam, no intentional action can be taken against the non-combatant population, even during a war. Therefore, the whole concept of weapons of Mass Destruction in its essence is unethical and unislamic to begin with. Killing of one innocent human being without any ethical reason is killing of the whole humanity as per Quran. The action of intentionally killing thousands of innocent people who were non-combatants on the basis of a theory that it might save many more lives in the future has no ethical basis and is also against the Islamic principles of Jihad.
For a detailed discussion on this issue, please refer to the video below from 12:04 to 24:43 and from 39:07 to 39:33 and from 46:10 to 50:16
-
Please also refer to the video below from 1:57:52 to 2:01:50
Important Note: In this video Ghamidi Sahab said that the U.S.A apologized for the use of nuclear weapons on two cities of Japan but later on, when it was pointed out to him that this never happened, he admitted his mistake and apologized for his statement because the U.S.A never formally apologized for it.
https://www.youtube.com/live/p_MXao4S1NA?feature=share&t=7072
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
