Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
what are the major solutions to terrorism
religion and terrorism the connection
impact of terrorism on the world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: what are the major solutions to terrorism
Research Essay: Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.“ This is a popular quote regarding the state of terrorism, and how certain people may consider terrorism justifiable.
Justifying terrorism is, however, not different from justifying innocent slaughter. 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 rather 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. Terrorism ignores the lives of many people completely and this directly conflicts with people who are close to those who have died in an accident due to terrorism. This is a reason why terrorism is atrocious and shouldn’t be justified.
This act of slaughter violates human rights says Igor Primoratz of Arena Magazine, “Human beings are to be respected as holders of rights, which circumscribe a
Fam 2
certain area of freedom, thereby both acknowledging and protecting personhood. The terrorist can't show this type of respect. For if you have any basic rights at all, surely the right not to be killed or maimed for a terrorist cause is one of them” (4). Each human needs respect and their own rights and terrorism obliterates those two basic principles. Treating human lives as a means to an end is hardly the proper way to go around things, and that is one of the largest consequences of terro...
... middle of paper ...
...d 50,000 casualties (Effective human rights work is the best weapon against terrorism). There are nonviolent ways of dealing with oppression, following Gandhi’s example, and even the Boston Tea Party which brought changes with little violence. This Chechen conflict has been on-going for over 200 years, and unfortunately terrorist leaders continue to think terrorism will advance their cause even after much time has passed (Dershowitz 166).
More often than not, terrorism hurts people, the economy, and religion. This is evident in many cases throughout history. Ultimately, terrorism isn’t a means to an end, and the sacrifices for success are too great. Many terrorists aren’t able to accomplish their ill-minded goals, and people’s lives and businesses and beliefs among other factors will completely be in vain. To this end, it seems like terrorism cannot be justified.
...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.
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).
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.
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.
“One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter (Barash 2014: 174).” This one statement explains every war to ever be fought and also the delicate subject of terrorism. The line between who is the bad guy and the good guy will always be difficult to draw because everyone fights for a different reason. In this same sense every “terrorist” has his or her own story. Rarely can one blaring reason can be found to explain why attacks happen. Every soldier has a different reason for fighting, no matter what side of the front they are on. The same is true of terrorists. People the Western world may hold up as a hero the Eastern may condemn as the worst kind of terrorist, we know the opposite is true. Many people the West proclaim to be terrorists
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.
What is “terrorism”? Terrorism is a hotly contested term that is subjected to the reader’s political alignments. Most readers can agree that “terrorism” is a form of political action through violence that seeks to instill fear into a population, but defining “terrorism” becomes more complicated when being applied to groups and organizations. Lisa Stampnitzky’s “Can Terrorism Be Defined?” addresses this issue by drawing three important questions from the difficulty of defining “terrorism”: first, who is the enemy? Second, when is violence legitimate? Third, what is political? These three questions are instrumental in understanding terrorism while also understanding why certain groups are labeled terrorists and why others are not. This bias of
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.
There are three types of terrorists in today’s society: the single individual, a certain group, and government funded organization. These terrorists all resemble criminals with one major difference; they are dedicated to a higher cause and are not taking extreme measures for personal gain (Deleon).
Terrorism is a leading issue in American society and stated by Peter Gasser “Terrorist attacks have brought suffering and distress to individual victims” (Gasser). Terrorists could care less who they kill or how many because “terrorists strike indiscriminately.” (Gasser). Because of this we Americans must secure our borders tighter. Terrorists want to push their purpose onward but as Peter Gasser says “The purpose of terrorists attacks is to create fear to further their cause” (Gasser). Terrorists strive to maintain a political goal which is why “Terrorist attacks are often perpetuated against persons who have no direct influence” (Gasser) just so they can prove a point.
In the new era the terrorism has become more and more with different types of terrorism, the first type of terrorism is killing wi...
Terrorism is used around the world to create fear and influence the public on political views (Siegel, 489). There are four views of terrorism including the psychological view, socialization view, ideological view, and the alienation view. A religious terrorist would most likely fit under the ideological view. In this view the terrorist feels the need to change a wrong opinion and believes that, because they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe so strongly in, it justifies the damage and harm done to innocent people (Siegel, 490). They use terror to create fear in anyone who opposes them and attract followers to their religion. In short, terrorism is widely used for political reasons but religion has been linked to the violence as well.
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,
Terrorism has many forms, and many definitions. “Elements from the American definitional model define terrorism as a premeditated and unlawful act in which groups or agents of some principal engage in a threatened or actual use o...
The word terrorism was first used during the French Revolution from the reign of terror inflicted by the French from 1784-1804 ("International Affairs"). It was used to describe the violent acts perpetrated on the French that inflicted terror on the various peoples and instilled fear within them. However, at the time it had a more positive connotation than the term that instills fear today. During the French Revolution this was because it referred to state-sponsored terrorism in order to show the need of state instead of anarchy, sometimes promoted by other groups (Hoffman 2). Therefore, even though terrorism has taken a new nature, terrorism can refer to official governments or guerrilla groups operating outside national governments ("International Affairs"). In order to encompass terrorism’s various sectors and explain it to the public, in both positive and negative aspects, many analysts have tried to put it into a few words. Terrorism is a method used by tightly of loosely organized groups operation within states or international territories that are systematic in using deliberate acts of violence or threats in order to instill...