In 1944, the German Wehrmacht started terror bombing London. With the help of double agents that the British authorities had recruited among German spies, it would have been possible to deceive the enemy into redirecting his bombs away from Central London. This would likely have greatly reduced civilian casualties in Central London, while lead- ing to a comparably smaller increase of civilian deaths in some areas of South London. While the British deception authorities were in favour of redirecting the bombs, the War Cabinet's Ministers were opposed. In this paper, I investigate whether the Ministers had moral reason for their qualms. I argue that they did, as redirecting the bombs meant showing an unequal concern for the safety of dierent parts of the popu- lation. I suggest that all things considered, redirecting the bombs could nevertheless have formed part of a morally optimal response to the terror bombings. My discussion draws on insights from the moral philosophical literature that makes extensive use of hypothetical cases. Critics of this literature worry that its method renders its insights practically irrelevant. My paper suggests that this worry is exaggerated, but not without merit. The historical case that I discuss is not easily resolved using ideas from the case-based literature, but such ideas still help illuminate the decision the British authorities faced.

中文翻译：

---

为什么道德理论需要真实案例：二战期间 V 型武器的重定向

1944年，德国国防军开始对伦敦进行恐怖轰炸。在英国当局在德国间谍中招募的双重间谍的帮助下，有可能欺骗敌人将他的炸弹转移到伦敦市中心以外的地方。这可能会大大减少伦敦市中心的平民伤亡，同时导致伦敦南部一些地区的平民死亡人数增加幅度相对较小。虽然英国的欺骗当局赞成重新安置炸弹，但战时内阁的部长们却反对。在这篇论文中，我调查了部长们的疑虑是否有道德原因。我认为他们确实这样做了，因为重新定向炸弹意味着对不同部分人口的安全表现出不平等的关注。我建议考虑所有事情，尽管如此，改变炸弹的方向本可以成为对恐怖爆炸的道德最佳反应的一部分。我的讨论借鉴了广泛使用假设案例的道德哲学文献的见解。该文献的批评者担心其方法使其见解实际上无关紧要。我的论文表明这种担忧被夸大了，但并非没有道理。使用基于案例的文献中的想法并不容易解决我讨论的历史案例，但这些想法仍然有助于阐明英国当局面临的决定。该文献的批评者担心其方法使其见解实际上无关紧要。我的论文表明这种担忧被夸大了，但并非没有道理。使用基于案例的文献中的想法并不容易解决我讨论的历史案例，但这些想法仍然有助于阐明英国当局面临的决定。该文献的批评者担心其方法使其见解实际上无关紧要。我的论文表明这种担忧被夸大了，但并非没有道理。使用基于案例的文献中的想法并不容易解决我讨论的历史案例，但这些想法仍然有助于阐明英国当局面临的决定。