Is Terrorism Wrong

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.

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

In Alison M. Jaggar’s paper “What is Terrorism, Why is it Wrong, and Could it Ever be Morally Permissible?”, she takes the topic of terrorism and tries to bring up information about it in a way to where terrorism can be discussed fairly and examined critically. Terrorism has been defined differently by various people, but many have voiced their concerns about this type of violence. Jaggar tried to develop an account (i.e., in-depth definition) of terrorism that would be consistent, precise, and impartial (Jaggar Pg. 205). For an account to be impartial, there must be a separation of the moral assessment of terrorists’ ends from the moral assessment of the ways or strategies used by them (Jaggar Pg. 206). Jaggar’s proposed account of terrorism is as follows: Terrorism is the use of extreme threats or violence designed to intimidate or subjugate governments, groups, or individuals. It is a tactic of coercion intended to promote further ends that in themselves may be good, bad or indifferent. Terrorism may be practiced by governments or international bodies or forces, substate groups or even individuals. It 's threats or violence are aimed directly or immediately at the bodies or belongings of innocent civilians but these are typically terrorists’ secondary targets; the primary targets of terrorists are the governments, groups or individuals that they wish to intimidate. (Jaggar Pg 209) Her description of terrorism is very comprehensive or inclusive. Furthermore, her

The act of terrorism, an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, is most commonly seen targeting civilians but can also include damage to property or injury to specific individuals. These malicious acts are used to fulfil political, religious or ideological aims in attempt of intimidating the government or society. Terrorisms’ impact reflects on the government and society extracting various responses, both legal and non-legal. The effectiveness of these responses, aimed at obtaining equal justice against terrorism, tend to vary while considering the concepts of preventing terrorist attacks while not infringing on human rights and the resolution of the ‘war against terrorism’. The evident lack of consistency in these responses has been reflected

The U.S Law definition of terrorism is defined an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (U.S. Legal). Today’s terrorism would be best described as “mala in se” concept of the criminal justice system. Just look at the memorable U.S. terrorist attack, September 11, 2001, resulted in 2996 innocent deaths. This attack was premeditated attack against innocent non-combatant civilians. The acts of September 11th 2001 were morally proscribed offenses are those that cannot be justified in a sophisticated society. In our textbook the moral convictions of a terrorist is “unambiguous certainty of the righteousness of their cause; to them, there are no gray areas” (Martin, 2010). Terrorist feel that their interest are the only way and no one can reprimand them for their action because they are justified by their interest. Some terrorist group’s moral convictions most time come from them feeling as though they have been wrong by a more powerful evil. Others group’s moral convictions come from the superiority complex, these groups

Acts of terrorism are typically political oriented and ideologically motivated, ranging from specific goals expressed in terms of the might of political nation-states to more general purposes connected to the dilemma of certain people and groups. Therefore, terrorism can result from demands made by ethnic groups to receive representation in an existing political community or have its own state be formed, while terrorism can also be part of ideological fights for the acknowledgment of diminished expressions of ideas and ways of life. Because of the essentially political ideological objectives of terrorism, the fundamental ideas of terrorism are important to consider as the inspiring forces that fuel terrorist groups and individuals.

There are different elements clarify why terrorism is ethically wrong, regardless of the possibility that different types of murdering are every so often passable. Notwithstanding, terrorism slaughtering considers whether the utilization of different sorts of fear for political as opposed to military use makes terrorism altogether off-base. A few good qualifications that may be critical to the ethical quality and reasonable portrayal of terrorism are incorporated.

Al Qaeda is one of the most well known terrorist groups of the 21st century due to their statement terrorists acts that have shaken entire countries such as the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in the USA and the bombing of Madrid’s railway station in Spain. This group was founded in Saudi Arabia in 1988 by Osama Bin Laden after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. All actions that they take are justified by the Islamic religion and they are driven by the Sharia, naming themselves the Jihad or the members of the Holy War. Bin Laden and his deputies have been killed by the US in 2011 in an attempt to stop this terrorist group, however they continue to run today, only with less control and more killings, going by the name ISIS or the Islamic

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

A main misconception of terrorism especially in today’s society is that, society views terrorism as faith- based acts of violence, when it may not be the case. Terrorism is an illegitimate mean to achieve a cause; it is a willful defense of an ideology or a political group. These acts by sub state actors who violently target non-combatants to communicate a political a message. Terrorist are neither crazy nor

This week’s heavy focus on terrorism has brought up my past. I was very young when many of the original terrorist attacks happened. This idea that terrorism starts from someone being hurt or having something done to them is interesting. This vicious cycle that seems to never stop is confusing. What will ever stop this childish, “He did it to me so now I have to it to him”?

In this essay I will argue that terrorism, under its true definition, is not justifiable, and if would be considered justifiable, it is thus not terrorism. This argument may seem unusual, but upon delving into this term and the discussion that follows, it should seem logical and in harmony with the arguments discussed by both Coady and Palmer-Fernandez in their respective articles in Chapter 20. Arguing from a most basic perspective of sentimentalism and more specifically, ethics of care, which examine moral values from considerations of basic sympathy for a fellow human. In this case, we cannot simply rely on utilitarian ethics for instance, which argue for the overall greater good. Even if scarring

Unfortunately terrorism is morally wrong; therefore it can never be justified. From a utilitarian standpoint, terrorism does not contribute to achieving maximum happiness. If no one committed terrorist acts than there is a greater chance for society to achieve maximum happiness. A society without terrorism would have an easier time having more people

Terrorism is an act of violent protesting when a group or country wants to be heard when their opinion goes unnoticed. When hearing the word "terrorist" one might think of bombings, Osama Bin Laden or even the horrifying, yet famous tragedy of 9/11. The United States has endured the spread of infectious diseases, civil battles, and minor bomb threats and attacks; however, in most citizens’ eyes, nothing compares to the catastrophe of 9/11. From the unjust prejudice gestures of Americans towards Middle Eastern ethnicities to the advancements in security, it can be established that the events of 9/11 have been the result of a major “terrorist” attack that has had lasting effects on America.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.