A Utilitarian’s Perspective on Oppenheimer’s Dilemma

By Hannah Hippmann

Oppenheimer’s role in the Manhattan Project during World War II was rooted in the American government's insatiable thirst for power and global dominance, expressed through the pursuit of a radical weapon that would demolish enemies. Oppenheimer’s plutonium-based atomic bomb was first tested on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico (The Trinity Test). Not even a month after, these bombs resulted in the subsequent massacre of thousands in Nagasaki and Hiroshima (6th and 9th August 1945). Whilst Oppenheimer was motivated by the fear of foreign domination and the continuation of the war, he later expressed significant regret for the atomic bomb as he realised it had perpetually altered international relations (resulting in the Cold War), thousands of lives, and revolutionised warfare. His story, which culminated in the revocation of his security clearance due to his ties to communist associations, was reignited by Christopher Nolan’s 2023 biographical thriller, Oppenheimer. His film revealed the ethical dilemma Oppenheimer faced in an increasingly politically polarised world, confronting the potential of human-initiated destruction. 

Oppenheimer’s ethical dilemma centres on whether committing a morally reprehensible act can be justified to prevent even greater human atrocities. Oppenheimer, though not in control of America’s wartime decisions (unlike Truman), indirectly caused the end of WWII. It’s clear that Oppenheimer took the burden of moral responsibility for the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stating that “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. 

Although it is simple for individuals in the 21st century to view the development of nuclear weapons with disdain, Oppenheimer’s context heavily influenced his decision to lead the Manhattan Project. Through integrating the ethical framework of rule utilitarianism, the outcomes of Oppenheimer’s decision will be analysed. As a global citizen who held no 

stubborn political views, Oppenheimer only wished for the war to end and simultaneously advance nuclear research. Oppenheimer’s nuclear bomb contributed to preventing the continuation of WWII, providing relief from the despicable crimes against humanity. WWII persists as a pillar of the global commoditisation and dehumanisation of people, with events such as the Holocaust, Nanjing Massacre, Unit 731 (a covert biological and chemical warfare research unit of the Japanese army responsible for the inhumane human experimentation), Soviet mass repressions and deportations (under Stalin), Allied and Atomic bombing, and slavery. Thus, whilst ending WWII is good, the lives of some 220,000 people were lost, casting a perpetual shadow of shame, guilt, and mourning for the Japanese. Thus, an overwhelming negative utility. 

Following the birth of the atomic bomb, it began being developed in the US, Russia, the UK, China, France, India, and North Korea. Though devastating, Hiroshima and Nagasaki serve as examples of where the greed of humanity literally leaves gaping craters and cracks within the world, underscoring the horrific capability of humanity. Post-WWII, the military doctrine, ‘MAD’ (mutually assured destruction), clarified that a full-scale nuclear attack by one nuclear-armed power would be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack, resulting in the complete annihilation of both nations. Whilst some argue that the bombing of Japanese cities has, at least for now, safeguarded the world from more atomic bombs and constructed a universal rule of war, there are always alternative options. 

When considering the possibilities if Oppenheimer declined, the foundation of nuclear/atomic theory and concepts of a bomb through nuclear fission still existed, so it would be likely that a Soviet or American would develop it. Thus, whilst maybe not in Japan during WWII, a similar level of bombing would have occurred to educate the world of its innate wrong. However, do these nations need an example of a massacre to understand the extremity of nuclear weapons? Whilst idyllic, would it not be possible for the Soviet Union, the US, and other powers to develop atomic weapons simultaneously and thus let ‘MAD’ be established? Nevertheless, this would likely not occur due to a nation wanting to showcase its power and dominance. So, what of the world if Oppenheimer stepped away from nuclear chemistry? It would only be a matter of time before the Soviet Union or America developed an atomic bomb, and perhaps the circumstances would be worse. What if the Soviet Union bombed Japan and subsequently forced all other nations to submit to it? Society would be radically different in every lens (for one, the world would likely be communist), and it is complete speculation on the utility of this world. Therefore, is this innately horrific action ‘just’ and ‘ethically good’ in comparison to accepting a future where America, in Oppenheimer’s eyes, ceases to exist, or accepting a future of utter despair, poverty, and lack of rights? However, under rule utilitarianism, if Oppenheimer’s bomb was a ‘necessary evil’, it sets the precedent that people can be simply sacrificed and wiped off the face of the Earth if it merely allows a larger proportion of the Earth to have relief. Thus, while long-term deterrence through mutually assured destruction may have been achievable by other geopolitical developments, the immediate human cost suggests a net negative utility under act utilitarian evaluation. 

Ultimately, from a rule utilitarian perspective, whilst there can be a case made for Oppenheimer’s decision, if one accepts the rule that contributing to wartime innovation to end conflict swiftly is morally just, this is a real, heavily politicised topic that has intertwined itself in the social, economic, and political foundations of contemporary society and views on modern warfare. Thus, there is an overwhelming amount of nuance. In a positive light, it ended WWII, ignited the extensive research and possibility for new sources of dense energy, and safeguarded the world from nuclear war due to ‘MAD.’ Conversely, it resulted in the death of thousands, provided an inhumane amount of power to military leaders, polarised the global society through the Cold War, and remains a constant looming threat to every nation. Oppenheimer’s dilemma reveals that core ‘rules of humanity’ are bypassable if they ensure a greater utility, and cruelly, people are sacrificed. Essentially, if Oppenheimer had not made the decision, who would? Yet, this does not justify anything. This tragic event reminds humanity that the pursuit of scientific innovation and utility must always be tempered by an intricate comprehension of its human cost and context. Even utilitarianism cannot surely answer such multifaceted issues.