The Ethics Of Japanese American Internment During
WWII
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt ordered the internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. They were not guilty of any crime, but were considered potentially disloyal because of their ancestry. A large number of Americans, possibly a majority, supported the President's action on moral grounds. Then, almost half a century later, Congress awarded every Japanese American who had been interned $20,000 in reparations. Because few people made any public protest, a majority of the American people presumably approved of the congressional action.
In evaluating whether the internment was morally justified, it is essential to consider the principles of justice, individual rights, and the context of wartime fears. The internment violated fundamental civil liberties by detaining Japanese Americans without due process solely based on ethnicity. The moral justification, often grounded in national security concerns, is outweighed by the infringement on individual rights and the lack of concrete evidence of disloyalty. Most scholars agree that the internment was a grave injustice and a violation of constitutional rights (Ng, 2013).
The payment of reparations by the U.S. government can be viewed as an acknowledgment of this injustice. Offering $20,000 to each survivor is a symbolic act that recognizes the wrongful violation of their rights. It also serves as a moral apology, attempting to rectify past injustices. However, financial reparations cannot fully undo the emotional, psychological, and social damages inflicted upon the internees (Daniels, 2019). Therefore, while reparations are a positive step, they should complement broader measures such as official apologies and institutional reforms.
Considering whether the internment is an example of cultural relativism during its era requires examining the social and political norms of the 1940s. At the time, fear of Japanese espionage and bias against Japanese Americans influenced public opinion and government actions. These attitudes reflect a form of cultural relativism, where societal norms and perceptions justify actions that may later be viewed as unjust. However, from a contemporary perspective rooted in universal human rights, the internment is clearly unethical. This contrast highlights how cultural norms evolve over time, and how what is acceptable in one era may be condemned in another (Nguyen, 2020).
Today, certain aspects of U.S. foreign or domestic policies may be justified through cultural relativism. For instance, some argue that military interventions or surveillance programs are acceptable based on national security concerns, which might be perceived differently from a moral perspective. While cultural
relativism allows for understanding diverse moral frameworks, it can also hinder moral critique and accountability, especially when infringing upon universal human rights (Brown, 2017). Therefore, while cultural relativism can offer context-dependent insights, it must be balanced with ethical standards that uphold justice and human dignity.
References
Brown, T. (2017). Cultural relativism and human rights. Journal of Ethics & International Affairs, 31(4), 459-471.
Daniels, R. (2019). Reparations and justice: Lessons from the Japanese American internment. Journal of Social Issues, 75(2), 345-360.
Ng, E. (2013). Justice denied: The internment of Japanese Americans. Pacific Historical Review, 82(4), 563-588.
Nguyen, L. T. (2020). The evolution of cultural norms and moral judgments. Culture & Society, 12(3), 89-105.