道德與投資（三）
Weapons of Defense
The question of whether military force can be used ethically is one of the oldest and most difficult in history. To me, Hitler and World War II are sufficient proof that maintaining a strong U. S. Military force is a moral act.
Some of my best friends disagree. To them, the ends do not justify the means. I asked one friend, who is a Quaker, what the U. S. should have done about Hitler. His response: "I don't know. But I believe we should have found an alternative other than force."
That is an intellectually honest position, but to me not persuasive. On the whole, I feel the world is a better place if the U.S. has rocket fuel (Cordant), defense electronics (Litton), and Seasprite naval helicopters (Kaman), than if we don't.
防御武器：
軍事力量能否被合乎道義地使用是歷史上最古老的也是最困難的道德問題之一。對我來說，希特勒和二戰足以證明美國保持強大的軍事力量是道德的行為。
我的一些最好的朋友不同意這個觀點。他們認為，目的正當并不能證明手段正當。我問一位教友派信徒的朋友，對希特勒這樣的人美國應該怎么辦。他說：“我不知道。但我相信我們應該找到另一種辦法，而不是暴力。”
這是一個理智的誠實態度，但對我沒有說服力。總的來說，我覺得如果美國有考頓公司生產的火箭燃料、利頓公司的電子防御系統和卡曼公司的海軍用海怪直升機，這個世界會比我們沒有這些武器更好一些。
散文本文地址：http://www.autochemexpert.com/writing/essay/42994.html
