Yes and No. It is an ethical dilemma. Hiroshima was chosen as it purportedly had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and factories. Most other cities had been devastated by bombing, but Hiroshima was still intact and thus, a good "sampling" of what the actual damage from the A-bomb could render.
Some would argue that it was a life-saving move on the part of then President Truman. He believed, or at least tried to justify the bombing by stating that it would ultimately save thousands upon thousands of lives that would needlessly die if the war continued. That reasoning is understandable. However, if the sole intent was to end the war, as I am sure would have occurred by Japan's recognition of the devastation of Hiroshima, then why drop another bomb on Nagasaki three days later?
The reality is the evil outweighs the good. The US had developed 2 bombs, distinct in their characteristics, both with lethal capabilities. There is no question in my mind that from the beginning it was the intent to drop both of them. The US had the opportunity to end the war, solidify their position as THE military superpower, and prove that all the efforts of the Manhattan project were justified.
In the words of Oppenheimer, " I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." (Vishnu, fromn the Hindu sacred writings of the Bhagavad-Gita)
Sounds pretty evil to me.