Introduction
In her book, Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century Cynthia Combs claims that terrorism, no matter the cause, is never acceptable3. While I do agree that killing innocent people is usually wrong; I don’t think you can make the sweeping generalization that terrorism is never acceptable. I predict that given a fair and unbiased analysis some cases of terrorism are morally acceptable.
Terrorism is almost always viewed as one of the most deplorable offenses. The terrorists themselves have been labeled enemies of humanity, but are such accusations true? Are they really criminals committing immoral and unjust attacks, or are they just fighting a war the best way they can? Questions like this are difficult to answer impartially. The general population of the world has such negative views on terrorism because we are the victims, the targets. But to the people committing these acts they must be morally acceptable. To counter this situational bias I’ll use five of the most common ethical theories to analyze various terrorist attacks.
Introduction to Ethical Theories
The first ethical theory I’ll use as a tool for determining the morality of terror attacks is the divine command theory. Simply put, the divine command theory states that your action is right if and only if and just because God commands it8. This theory is absolute, there is no wiggle room. No matter what command God gives it is the right thing to do. There are five commonly accepted sources for determining God’s commands: scripture, religious authority, individual revelation, public signs, and reason8. Millions of Americans make moral decisions based off of the divine command theory every day without realizing it. And in other countries, like Israel or Iran, th...
... middle of paper ...
....
Conclusion
It is easy to just assume that all terrorist activities are wrong, but doing so is wrong. Terrorism and political violence are tools, methods for accomplishing a goal. And no tool is ever immoral. It is what you plan on accomplishing with that tool and how you use it. While terrorism is more extreme than other political tools like protest and lobbying, there exist situations in which it is the correct, and possibly only, course of action. When these situations do arise it is inappropriate to classify them as immoral without first unbiasedly analyzing the situation. In most cases that results will probably come back as expected, with the terrorists being immoral, but that won’t always be that case. There is always the chance that the terrorists you were ready to label the enemies of humanity are actually fighting to make the world a better place.
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.
Seeing countless news reports about terrorist attacks or attempts throughout the years, I now believe terrorism under the name of religion is a simple gateway to having authority over someone or the greed of power, thinking it sounds justifiable if you claim “it is an order of God”. As stated in the article Terrorism in the Name of Religion, “Religious terrorist groups often become cheap and effective tools for specific states in the advancement of their foreign policy political agendas”; religious terrorism can often be interpreted is a way to assert a group into one’s beliefs however like Richard and the article mentions, it is an excuse to fulfill a political agenda or go against the government
When we think of terrorist, we might think of radical Islamic individuals or groups who would take pride in killing anyone who is not Muslim. Even more, there are antagonistically people who want nothing more but to destroy the lives of innocence people because of their belief system. Take an individual like Theodore Kaczynski for instance; he was a former University of California at Berkeley math professor. Otherwise known as the “Unabomber,” he was indeed a terrorist because he used explosives that killed three people and wounded eighteen others in a span of almost two decades. Even more, his brother David Kaczynski was responsible for his capture.
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
I will start with what the terrorists did. The negative feeling they had against the American people did not develop over night. These feelings had been simmering for a long period of time to form what Durkeim would call their “collective consciousness”. A collective consciousness is the collective representations and sentiments that guide and bind together any social group. (Allan p. 109) They committed suicide. Durkeim would call this Altruistic Suicide. The people who committed these horrible acts had a high group attachment. They took their own life for what they thought was to the benefit of their own group. Durkeim says that when there is high group attachment the life of the individual is not as meaningful. The group becomes his or her only reality. The terrorists obtained their effervescence or emotional energy from a common misinterpretation of their religious text, the Koran. They believed they were doing what they needed to do to please their GOD, Allah. Allah and the misinterpreted Islamic faith became their symbol that gave them the necessary effervescence to not only kill millions...
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
In Module one, I learned that terrorism is a result of physical harm or deadly acts of force with the intent of a political outcome by the use of terror for coercion. There are various types of terrorism such as international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International terrorism occurs outside of the United States with a purpose to influence the policy of a government by intimidation. International and Domestic terrorism both involve violent acts dangerous to human life that violate federal and state laws. Domestic terrorism occurs within the United States with the intention of coercion or intimidation by way of mass destruction, etc. Some forms of terrorism include Improvised explosive devices (IED), kidnappings, suicide bombings and
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Anke Dumoulin English Literature I Tine Kempenaers Wednesday 14:30 The green book as a representation of finding an identity in J.D. Salinger’s Franny In the short story Franny, the motif of the small, green notebook, filled with spiritual content, provokes the theme of finding an identity. The book represents Franny finding meaning in spirituality and using that to answer the question of who she wants to be.
Justifying innocent slaughter suggests that terrorists believe that political or religious conflicts are more prominent than a segment of typically uninvolved humans. Not only does terrorism cause deaths, but it also negatively affects a country’s economy and religion. Terrorism causes more problems than “solving” problems terrorists may have. The first reason for asserting that terrorism cannot be justified is the slaughter of innocent people, which isn’t moral. Whether people uninvolved are killed isn‘t a concern to terrorists.
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However, in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
Most religions specify that violence is not allowed and yet extremists will cause major destruction in the name of their God. However, some people are too quick to blame religion on terrorism (Winchester, 2). In actuality, it is the nature of human beings to prove that their way is right, there way of doing that is using fear and destruction (Winchester, 3). It is not religion that causes the terr...
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American