A most interesting figure …

… Untempted by the Consequences | Commonweal Magazine. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

I have my doubts regarding her moral absolutism. Surely it is permissible to lie in order, say, to save the life of an innocent person. As for Truman and the dropping of the atomic bomb, had he chosen not to drop it and ordered an invasion of Japan, plenty of other innocent people would doubtless have died. And by her reasoning — he would have had to intend the consequences of that choice — he would once again have been responsible for something morally wrong. So there was no way for him to do something morally right, since the very conduct of war would entail permitting the morally unacceptable to happen.

As for WWII, the Germans certainly targeted Britain’s civilian population (she would have known of the Blitz). To insist that the Allies maintain their moral purity by not doing the same would seem to have entailed a longer war and possible defeat, neither of which seems morally preferable to victory — and the consequent cessation of hostilities — as soon as possible.