If we permit that moral choices with very long-term time horizons can be made with the upmost well-meaning intentions and show evidence of admirable character traits, but nevertheless have difficult-to-see consequences with variable outcomes, then I think that limits us considerably in how much we can retrospectively judge specific individuals.
The Manhattan Project brought us nuclear weapons, whose existence affects the world to this day, 79 years after its founding—I would call that a long timeline. And we might not have seen all the relevant effects!
But yeah, I think we have enough info to make tentative judgements of at least Klaus Fuchs’ espionage, and maybe Joseph Rotblat’s quitting.
Well, by that token, every scientific discovery and such has also plenty of very long term implications, simply out of sheer snowballing. I guess my point was more about which concerns dominated their choices: it wasn’t some 5D chess long term play, but obvious pressing moral issues of the time. Should we use it on the Nazis, should we use it on Japan, should we share it with the USSR or let the USA establish dominance, should we just try to delay its creation as much as possible, should we stop before fusion bombs… all of those questions ended up mattering on rather short time horizons. Not even 20 years after the end of the project the Cuban missile crisis happened already and the cold war was in full swing. And those consequences weren’t particularly hard to guess, though of course, there’s always all sorts of chaotic events that can affect them. So my point is that the usual problems with long term thinking—discount rates essentially prompted by uncertainty—don’t apply here. People could make decent guesses, in fact most of the people in the project seem to have done just that; they merely rationalised them away with “ehhhh, but who can possibly know for sure” if they wanted to keep doing the thing regardless for their own reasons.
If we permit that moral choices with very long-term time horizons can be made with the upmost well-meaning intentions and show evidence of admirable character traits, but nevertheless have difficult-to-see consequences with variable outcomes, then I think that limits us considerably in how much we can retrospectively judge specific individuals.
I agree with that principle, but how is that relevant here? The Manhattan Project’s effects weren’t on long timelines.
The Manhattan Project brought us nuclear weapons, whose existence affects the world to this day, 79 years after its founding—I would call that a long timeline. And we might not have seen all the relevant effects!
But yeah, I think we have enough info to make tentative judgements of at least Klaus Fuchs’ espionage, and maybe Joseph Rotblat’s quitting.
Well, by that token, every scientific discovery and such has also plenty of very long term implications, simply out of sheer snowballing. I guess my point was more about which concerns dominated their choices: it wasn’t some 5D chess long term play, but obvious pressing moral issues of the time. Should we use it on the Nazis, should we use it on Japan, should we share it with the USSR or let the USA establish dominance, should we just try to delay its creation as much as possible, should we stop before fusion bombs… all of those questions ended up mattering on rather short time horizons. Not even 20 years after the end of the project the Cuban missile crisis happened already and the cold war was in full swing. And those consequences weren’t particularly hard to guess, though of course, there’s always all sorts of chaotic events that can affect them. So my point is that the usual problems with long term thinking—discount rates essentially prompted by uncertainty—don’t apply here. People could make decent guesses, in fact most of the people in the project seem to have done just that; they merely rationalised them away with “ehhhh, but who can possibly know for sure” if they wanted to keep doing the thing regardless for their own reasons.