Hey
could i have a bit of feedback please on part of one of my major work paragraphs- i'm struggling a bit with it as u can prob tell!!!
I'm really not sure if it makes any sense at all....but thanks for ur help!
Question: If history is supposed to be fact, why are there so many accounts? Explore this through the lens of the Manhattan Project.
The value of truth in documentation is not instinctively recognised unless prompted by a distinct lack of morality. To infer an historian’s documentation is innately moral is too simplistic, given the subjectivity of morality itself. Hence, it is imperative to consider the motivations driving a documentation, to adequately determine its veracity as fact. Ultimately, the concern that historians should make moral judgements apropos to their work, remains as a contentious issue. This is furthered through Andrew Brown’s understanding in his work Keeper of the Nuclear Conscience: The life and Work of Joseph Rotblat, “[M]orality is a lot like gravity. It’s a pervasive force which is essential for human activity, but like gravity is a weak force, and it’s easily overcome.” This furthers the ideas of the value of truth in documenting work, as Brown comprehends the weaknesses of morality and the ability for individuals to despise these values despite its essentiality to life. Consequently, Brown highlights that in an absence of integrity, the historian’s veracity is challenged and the possibility of fact in history is ultimately questioned. Likewise, philosopher George Grant has pursued an investigation recognising that fact without morality is deficient of meaning, and consequently becomes a product of thought- evidently enabling historians to produce numerous accounts of little worth. Grant’s consideration “Good deprived of its spiritual and moral dimension becomes value, or values, a concept of worth, utility, commodity, judgements from a denatured soul rather than ideas permeated with meaning” , is relative to activities undertaken by scientists, doctors and physicists in their work on the production of an atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. J Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist known as ‘the father of the atomic bomb’, claims that “when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it”, conveying the absence of considering morals and ethics in a scientific academy. As believed by nuclear disarmament specialist Jennifer Allen Simmons, the analysis of political, religious or moral issues would mar the pursuit of scientific truth by dogma or human passions, allowing workers of the Manhattan Project to overlook humanity to pursue an invention in ignorance of the consequences. Therefore, it is evident that a sense of immorality can ultimately deter fact from becoming truth, in an historians’ quest to reflect their motives.
thankuuuuuu!!!
Home
Help
Search
Login
