So if you choose an example, it is forbidden for anyone to question your use of that example? Obviously it isn't the only issue, but why can't it be discussed?
Of course you can. My point was that was 1 example of a way that science has been used to destroy generations of land, people and ecosystems, it is not the only example of science's ugly side. There are more than a few, and as atheists, we need to avoid getting into the habit of privileging science as though "Science can do no wrong". Science is done by scientists, who are human. Many atheists seem to forget this and idolize Science. (Not you, but some around here and many out there on the interwebs). For some of us, though, we did not just discover science
Yes I know that. You're supporting my point, which is that it's not philosophy per se that is going to give you a safeguard, but the reliance on first deciding what result you want. It has to be that way, because you can only begin to reason once you have decided on your axioms.
But the axioms you use are part of philosophy.
Like numericals are part of mathematics, which underlies science. Philosophy is a process of collecting and analyzing knowledge. Science is a process of collecting, analyzing and applying data. It is that last role of science which could use a lot more ethical considerations.
Yes, and I am giving you the other arguments, whether you find them palatable or not. Military decisions like that are based on an assessment of the trade-offs. You can't please all of the people all of the time. In the same situation, what would have been your alternative? You need a viable one if you are going to support your claim that the use of the bombs was wrong.
I am not in that situation, and would never be, because my philosophy does not require me to go and kill and maim others for any cause, religion, nationalism or jingoism. See how philosophy affects your choices - even if you don't think you have a philosophy.
As for militarism's apologetics, that's a whole other debate we can have in a dedicated thread if you'd like. You may want to consider though why you choose to look for reasons to justify the philosophy of militarism, i.e. "Military decisions like that are based on an assessment of the trade-offs. You can't please all of the people all of the time." - especially considering historical contexts of the particular bombing discussed here.
Who ever said we should? I never mentioned any such thing.
My point was that similarly, there is no good reason to discard all of philosophy, just because it (and some people who call themselves philosophers) are annoying, or because some types of philosophies are problematic. That would be akin to disregarding all of science because some of its practitioners are questionable and some of its products have been devastating.
They do have similarities, yes.
That was my original point: they are similar, and they are both needed. To add, they can both be used for good and for bad, and they are both based on unprovable underlying presumptions.
Topic: z0mg philololosophy s0xerz