The Japan Earthquake and the Ethics

For the past decade, the world has experienced a nuclear energy renaissance fueled by society's desire for alternative sources of clean power. However, due to the recent nuclear calamities following the Japan earthquake and tsunami, this resurgence may be over. The disaster has reopened a debate that has spanned generations regarding whether the use of nuclear technology for our energy needs is sensible. Some supporters and opponents even view the issue as a moral one. Proponents argue that refusing to employ nuclear technology in an energy-starved world is unethical. Others believe that the use of nuclear energy, with its potential for catastrophic accidents and radioactive by-products is wrong. This discussion raises key questions: is the use of nuclear energy a moral issue, and, if so, how do we tell if its use is ethical or unethical?
Philosophers generally identify moral issues with decisions or actions that involve possible benefit or harm to oneself and others. The outcomes of such decisions are right/good or wrong/bad. The issue of nuclear energy use meets this requirement. Those on both sides of the nuclear technology issue would likely agree that use of this form of energy does involve potential benefit or harm. However, they disagree about which outcome is accurate.
If deciding to use or eschew nuclear energy is a moral decision, how does one determine whether either decision is right or wrong? This depends on what a person believes is the basis for morality, which is referred to as a moral theory. There is no universal moral theory, and therefore, many different ways to judge the morality of a particular action. However, most of those engaged in the debate regarding the ethics of nuclear energy speak of the consequences of its use. This implies a consequentialist viewpoint.