Terrorism is Wrong

615 Words2 Pages

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.

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...

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of Jeff Mcmahan's Killing In War (2009)

    1534 Words  | 4 Pages

    Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this

    Read More

  • Analysis of Michael Walzer's View on Terrorism

    1574 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • GOODWIN AND BATTLE OF ALGIERS: CATEGORICAL TERRORISM

    961 Words  | 2 Pages

    Clearly, the UN definition being more general as any act of terror, it is found that revolutionary groups adopt the use of categorical terrorism because it is commonly cheaper than selective terrorism. Further, Goodwin argues that categorical terrorism is employed for the purpose of attacking and threatening what he calls “complicitous civilians.” Complicitous civilians are defined as (1) civilians who often benefit from state actions that the revolutionaries oppose, (2) those that support the state, (3) or civilians who have the ability to influence the state. The primary directive of categorical terrorism is to provoke complicitous civilians from further supporting the state. By applying intense...

    Read More

  • Terrorism and Morality by Haig Khatchadourian

    1814 Words  | 4 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Debunking Bin Laden's Just War Theory Claims

    1112 Words  | 3 Pages

    September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis Of Thomas Nagel's War And Massacre

    1542 Words  | 4 Pages

    Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.

    Read More

  • Terrorism: Public Safety More Important Than Freedom

    1172 Words  | 3 Pages

    For decades, the world’s many governments have regarded safety as a high-ranked priority for their countries and their citizens, especially the American government. Though some high officials place freedom above safety, they realize that safety must be achieved before the average citizen approaches the concept of acquiring freedom. H.L. Mencken states that the average citizen will choose safety over freedom. The average citizen can be defined as a person who would rather put his safety before others even for the sake of his freedom; however, an extraordinary citizen will put his life on the line for others’ safety and freedom. As Alexander Hamilton said, “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of […] national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.” Hamilton says that when put against external dangers safety takes priority and the American citizens will accept certain limitations of freedoms for their safety. Also, Hamilton states that the love of freedom with eventually become surpassed by the need of safety. The average American citizen prefers safety above freedom; this is affirmed by the citizen’s desire to protect themselves by any means necessary against cultural, territorial, and terrorist threats.

    Read More

  • The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz

    1414 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.

    Read More

  • Is State Terrorism '?: Is State Terrorism A Valid Concept?

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as

    Read More

  • Realism and the War on Terror

    529 Words  | 2 Pages

    Probably the most obvious critique of realism with regard to the war on terrorism is that it is a theory that deals with international relations. The belligerents in the war on terrorism are not always conventional nation-states. Therefore, any theory that seeks to explain international relations must be amended to fit the framework of a situation in which nations are not the only players. This is not simply a matter of diction either. Non-state actors do not always act like states possessing a cohesive foreign policy and a desire for self-preservation and advancement. Furthermore, terrorist organizations are not tied to any specific area of land surrounded by well-defined borders that are protected with conventional military forces. This is not to say that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are entirely devoid of the motivations on which traditional nation-sates act like the desire for power, wealth, and security; beca...

    Read More

  • Research Essay: Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?

    1685 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Exploring the Dynamics of Political Violence

    1719 Words  | 4 Pages

    However, it is challenging to distinguish between forms of political violence that are legal from forms that are illegal, like terrorism. Especially, when groups are claiming to achieve a common good for their communities thus a ‘terrorist without a cause is not a terrorist’ (Gupta 2008, 32). Targeting non-harming civilians, nonetheless, is illegitimate and hurts the legality of the movement. Nevertheless, it is imperative to understand the nature of the individual violent acts, the intention behind the acts, and the meaning of the act before labeling an act as terrorism (Bryan, Kelly and Templer 2011, 7). However, intentionally using noncombatants as a weapon to achieve political change is illegitimate under any

    Read More

  • Terrorism vs. Human Rights

    607 Words  | 2 Pages

    Terrorism vs. Human Rights Ken Livingston said of the London bombings “The people of London will get through this”. This statement, as defiant as it is, isn’t strictly true. Even if the people of London did not bow down to the terrorists, surely the government now is. The Prevention of Terrorism bill shows that the government is clearly willing to give up our freedom of speech as a result of the 7/7 bombings. This more then anything is handing victory to the terrorists.

    Read More

  • We Need a Precise Definition of Terrorism

    1559 Words  | 4 Pages

    In early 1974, the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, invited the Palestinian Liberation Organization to attend the General Assembly gathering on November 13, 1974, and in doing so gave legitimacy to the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a governing body. In Yasser Arafat’s speech to the General Assembly, he thanked the United Nations for recognizing his organization and its legitimacy. When Arafat addressed the General Assembly, he made the argument that the actions taken by his government were not acts of terrorism, but these were acts of revolution and their purpose was to regain control of Palestine’s occupied original territory. The problem we confront is, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism and the international community should be able to come up with one. The major hurdle in defining is the states’ ideas of what terrorism is.

    Read More

  • The Issue Of Terrorism: Terrorism As A Controversial Issue

    1303 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Terrorism is Wrong

Open Document