Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
First to determine if terrorism is in fact right or wrong we must understand what it is. Although there is not a universal definition to describe terrorism I relate closely to Walzers definition which is: “a random murder of innocent people, intended to frighten a population into demanding that their governments negotiate for their safety.” In Walzer’s article “Terrorism” (Cahn, 239) he lists the purpose and methods of terrorism as to “destroy the moral of a nation or a class, to undercut its solidarity; its method is the random murder of innocent people.” Innocent people or noncombatants, as people call them, are described as normal working civilians who do not play a role in the government or have any control of what is happening politically. These innocent people are the ones who are targeted with no regards to political affiliation, the only thing that makes them the target is simply belonging to a certain group. To offer an example in 911 innocent people were killed and were chosen only because they worked in the World Trade Center, they were not chosen for anything they had done politically. Wal...
... middle of paper ...
...agree with. The hardest aspect of determining whether or not terrorism is morally right or wrong is the various definitions that it can have. As mentioned earlier I relate to Walzer’s definition of terrorism and understand it as he does. As discussed I feel that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets and when, and no one has immunity. There are objections to this argument which is that conventional war is worse than terrorism therefore if war is justifiable then terrorism can be as well. As argued the difference between war and terrorist is the way of choosing your victims, which in my mind refutes this objection. Terrorism exists and whether it is right or wrong can be argued respectfully.
Works Cited
Cahn, S.M. (2011). Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, 2Nd Edition. (pp. 239-253) Oxford University Press
Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Lecture Notes – Ethics. University of Alberta.
Ethics: The Big Questions , edit ed by James P. Sterba, 259 -275. Malden, Massachusets: Blackwel Publishers Ltd, 1998.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
"BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism." BBC - Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
* Rachels, James. “The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill, New York, 2003.
Weston, Anthony. A Practical Companion to Ethics. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
person “usually a person who has committed a legal or moral transgression”. Justification in terrorism is used to reach a goal for political gain. Morris is against the killing of innocent people for any reason. I agree with Morris, because no one should lose their lives for political gain or any other unjustified reason but I also believe that lives will inevitably be lost for the greater good of the population. The will never be a war without casualties. Kantian and Utilitarianism principles oppose the killing of people of any kind regardless of the reward.
Theories of Ethics, Oxford University Press, 1990. Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Species of the World. New The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. Mackie, J. L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.
McGhee, James, and Kathleen Ouimet Perrin. Ethics and Conflict. Massachusets: Jones and Bartlett, 2008. Print.
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism as, “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”. Whereas the Belgium Red Cross says that terrorism is committed “for the purpose of intimidating the population, forcing a third party to act or destablishing or destroying the fundamental structures of a country or of an international organization”.
A terrorist’s actions may be viewed as ‘wrong’ justification however the terrorist feels it is ‘right’. “What our leaders and pundits never let slip is that the terrorists - whatever else they might be - might also be rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions” (William Blum). Society permits justification as long as it is backed by a coherent, rational process. For example Law permits justification under specific circumstances. Known as justifiable homicide, it is defined as: the killing of a person in circumstances, which allow the act to be regarded in law as without criminal guilt. It is committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances, which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. It is said to be justifiable under the following circumstances: 1.When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law; 2.When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal; 3.When a subaltern officer or soldier kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior; 4.When the party kills in lawful self-defence. The justification for such actions is based on the intention of upholding the law or self-defence and not on the very act itself. This would be a ‘positive’ application of
Furrow, Dwight. Ethics- Key Concepts In Philosophy. New York, NY: Continuum, 2005. Print. 20 Oct. 2011