Just War Theory

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.

When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

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.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

Much like the rest of the world, wars in the United States began before it was even considered a country. The revolutionary war was a brave and noble war fought by America’s earliest ancestors in the 1770s in the hopes of creating a better country for their prosperity. However, because it was not declared by an esteemed government, some would argue that it was not actually considered “just”. With the American Civil War, there were so many factors involved that the argument could be made both ways (2). Today, it has been decreed that the Civil War was fought entirely as an opposition to slavery in the South; however, at the time of the war, many more questions could be made as to the official reason. Because those battles were fought so long ago, theorists may only use the little information left behind to determine the justification of warfare.

During President Richard Nixon’s term, he advocated for “Vietnamization,” to remove American troops and allow South Vietnam a larger role in rising against the Communist North (“Overview of the Vietnam War”). Nixon’s method to stall the influx of North Vietnamese soldiers and supplies into South Vietnam by directing American troops to terminate Communist supply bases in Cambodia. This defied Cambodian neutrality and consequently provoked a national outcry.

The statement that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is not valid and this is because the differences between the two are far more complex than perspective alone. The issue with perspective being the only distinction is in the difficulty to accurately define terrorism in a way synonymous to describing the characteristics of a freedom fighter. In examining the characteristics of numerous definitions it becomes evident that there is a distinction in the relationship which terrorists and freedom fighters have with civilians when carrying out their violent and politically motivated goals.

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

In today's modern culture we are plagued with the reality of war and with that comes many drawbacks. some of these drawbacks are the religious aspects for those soldiers fighting in the war. In the united states there are many different religious backgrounds of people. These religions can range from judaism to islam but the most prominent one is christianity. Studies show that at least 66 percent of active military members are christian(Dowd).

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.

The just war theory has been considered one of the greatest oxymorons. How could an act that involves so much bloodshed and destruction be considered just? And how could peace be achieved through such violence? It is said that “All who take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Aquinas 484). Does that then mean that all wars should be condemned along with all who partake in it? According to St. Thomas Aquinas, not all acts of war can be justified; however, there are certain instances when a state should take up arms against another that threatens the peace and the safety of any group people. Yet, the battles and wars waged must not be of malicious intent, such as to humiliate, revenge, or simply destroy the other side. Therefore, it is the right of a nation to protect its people against an enemy and to take military actions if a direct threat is made against them, and if those military actions are executed solely for the purpose of the restoration of peace and the protection of those in danger, then any blood shed shall not be on the hands of those defending, but instead they shall hold the tools needed for peace.

The Gulf war was a brutal 7 month war that felt the full fury of the United Nations. The war effort possessed new technology and new ways of conducting war, but were these new ways justified and made true with the Just war Theory? The criteria of the Just war theory clearly identify that Fair Treatment of Prisoners must be upheld, No Atrocious Weapons to be used in combat and the War must be Committed for a Just Cause.

War and Terrorism is one of the most contended debates in our societies today and beyond. However, before making any contribution towards this topic, I will like readers of this paper to understand what war and terrorism means. A war from my understanding as a student from the textbook is refers to a situation that might arise between two or more factions that might either be related to injustice, economic inequality or intimidation, which will later result into arm conflict (either civilly or internationally), while terrorism on the other hand is considered as violence or intimidation used by individual or group of individuals against innocent civilians to achieve personal gains or to score political points against opponents. In this paper, I will be talking about Murphy and Lackeys’ perception about war and terrorism.