Curtis LeMay: 'Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.'

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.

In his quote "Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal," Curtis LeMay, a prominent figure in American military history, expresses a sentiment that is both shocking and thought-provoking. On the surface, this quote reveals a certain callousness towards the loss of human life during war, particularly during World War II. LeMay's remark highlights the stark reality that in times of conflict, individuals often become desensitized to violence and may even rationalize their actions as necessary for victory.However, beyond the initial shock of LeMay's statement, it opens the door to a deeper philosophical analysis of the nature of morality in war. This concept of moral relativism becomes particularly relevant when examining the actions of individuals who find themselves on the winning side of a war. By recognizing that perception of morality can be influenced by the outcome, the complexity of evaluating the actions of war can be fully grasped.One could argue that LeMay's quote reflects the moral confusion that can arise during wartime, where the lines between right and wrong become blurred. In the heat of battle, the urgency to secure victory and protect one's own soldiers may lead to a moral dissonance, causing individuals to overlook or dismiss the gravity of their actions. The quote also serves as a reminder that the evaluation of moral conduct should not solely be based on the outcome, as it can be shaped by factors beyond an individual's control.This brings us to an unexpected philosophical concept known as moral luck. Moral luck suggests that the moral assessment of an action can be influenced by factors that are beyond an individual's control, such as the consequences of one's actions or the inherent luck involved in a situation. In LeMay's case, the outcome of the war dictated how his actions would be perceived. Had he been on the losing side, the same actions that may have been hailed as necessary for victory would likely have been judged as cruel and inhumane.Moral luck challenges the notion that morality is solely determined by an individual's intentions and actions. It points to the inherent subjectivity in evaluating morality, highlighting the impact of circumstances on our perception of right and wrong. LeMay's quote serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the danger of judging the morality of actions solely based on the outcome, as this can lead to skewed ethical assessments.While it may be easy to condemn LeMay's quote as a shocking admission of disregard for human life, deeper reflection reveals the importance of recognizing the complexity and subjectivity of moral judgments. By delving into the unexpected philosophical concept of moral luck, we are invited to reevaluate our own perspectives on the moral evaluation of wartime actions. This exploration encourages us to move beyond the surface level of shock and engage in a more nuanced understanding of morality during times of conflict.