Oppenheimer: Science & Ethics
Philosophy in Film 1
In 1942, Colonel Leslie Groves of the American army recruited Robert Oppenheimer, a renowned physicist, to lead the Manhattan Project, a top-secret mission aimed at developing an atomic bomb. Oppenheimer, also of Jewish descent, shared concerns with Einstein about the potential for Nazi Germany, led by Heisenberg, to develop such a weapon first. Einstein, feeling compelled to act, wrote a letter to the President of the United States, though later regretted his decision.
While some scientists hesitated to participate in the development of an atomic bomb due to moral qualms, Oppenheimer’s perspective was primarily influenced by political urgency. Motivated by the ongoing genocide against his own people and the imperative to prevent further casualties in the war, he felt a deep sense of responsibility to spearhead the project. His determination to achieve scientific breakthroughs, coupled with the imperative to prevent Nazi advancement, motivated him to spearhead the project despite the ethical complexities.
After the success of the Manhattan Project, during which scientists discovered and tested the atomic bomb, they voiced that the responsibility for its use doesn’t solely rest with them just because they were involved in its creation. They acknowledged their inability to control how the military would deploy it. Later, when Oppenheimer proposed providing a seminar on its potential applications and informing the President about its consequences, military officials began excluding him from the decision-making process.
This scenario raises a significant question: should scientists bear responsibility for the outcomes of their research, particularly when those outcomes are destructive? I argue that they should not. Consider Einstein’s contributions, which were instrumental in the development of the atomic bomb. Yet, can we hold Einstein entirely accountable simply because his groundbreaking work in quantum mechanics laid the foundation for its discovery? Excluding any influence from his infamous letter, it’s difficult to draw such a direct line of responsibility. Applying this logic universally could lead to unfairly attributing societal challenges to scientific advancements, including the climate crisis.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that scientists should ignore the potential misuse of their research and creative endeavors by individuals. It’s undoubtedly crucial for scientists to contemplate such possibilities. However, when politicians exploit these advancements to sow destruction, casting blame solely on scientists as if they were the primary culprits obscures the true responsibility resting with politics and policymakers.
The essence of scientific research demands objectivity, as it undergoes thorough testing with contributions from various individuals to reach a universal conclusion. However, considering the scientists behind the research, the choices they make in exploring hypotheses reveal that our values are inevitably intertwined with the scientific process from the very beginning.
In a key scene from the film, American officials consider a pivotal decision after the discovery of the atomic bomb: to inform Japan of their newfound power and compel their surrender. This proposal seemed like the most logical outcome, didn’t it? Demonstrating their strength without resorting to using the bomb to prevent disaster and end the war. However, American leaders hesitated, believing they had no other means to stop Japan’s advance. Ultimately, they chose to use the bomb in a bid to end the conflict. And even now when we think about it, it’s a haunting tragedy, and only seventy years have passed since.
Scientific progress inevitably leads to the development of new technologies and tools, raising concerns about the potential disasters they may bring. Establishing commissions to anticipate and address these potential consequences is crucial. These commissions should include not only politicians and legal experts but also ethicists and philosophers, who can discuss and debate such initiatives and have the authority to suspend them if necessary. However, one must ask: what would be the real effectiveness of legal sanctions or these commissions? Considering the ongoing atrocities in the Middle East, where efforts to pressure Israel to cease its actions have failed, unfortunately we seem to be entering a stage where all tactics are deemed acceptable in warfare. Essentially, when watching “Oppenheimer,” it’s crucial to grasp the ethical responsibilities of scientists, recognizing that science is not entirely free from political influences, and emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing scientific endeavors after their completion.
