Terrorism: Meaning of Life and Oxford University Press Essay

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 a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

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.

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).

No one will or should advocates for Terrorism. (Walzer, p. 284) This is the start of his thesis and it is the basis for my objection. Terrorism is as bad as or even worse than rape and murder. Not only is it the killing of people but it is an intrusive fear. (Walzer, 1988, p. 283) He claims that since the acts are random, degrading, and frightening then they should be indefensible. Terroristic rage is purposeful and pragmatic. A Small number of dead victims make for a large population of scared hostages. It is also the strategic choices which make it worse than random acts of violence. Therefore Moral justification is ruled out. (Walzer, p. 284) Walzer also breaks down how people defend terrorism. The use of excuses instead of openly defending and justifying terrorism is the whole purpose of his paper. The support is indirect but not ineffective: I.e. apologetic descriptions and explanations. He states, “I take for granted: that every act of terrorism is a wrongful act.” (Walzer, p. 284) But he is where is will interject in his

The equation of dealing with terrorism on an ethical level is complicated by its components not connected to an official state. Just War theory sets a list of checkpoints before a just war can be declared (Snauwaert 2004). This list is known as the Jus ad Bellum and is comprises, but not limited to: just cause, right authority, right intention, proportionality, reasonable hope of success, and last resort (Snauwaert 2004).

Additionally, John Mueller lambasts what he labels as the socially constructed ‘terrorist industry,’ which he attacks for artificially inflating concerns over terrorist attacks. Instead, Mueller confirms that the damage caused by terrorism is not materially significant but stems primarily from the fear that it creates. Violent retaliation is viewed as a form of ‘self-flagellation’ that provides the terrorists with exactly what they want. As mentioned, realist definitions of power, self-interest and rationality lack explanatory prowess when non-state actors are able to subvert states thanks largely in part to the use of suicide-terrorism. The proliferation of terrorist groups and their use of suicide-tactics in many ways defies realist expectations and conclusions.

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

This week in Lamy terrorism and human security were covered in chapters nine and ten. LAmy describes terrorism as the use of violence to bring attention to a “grievance”, to get a certain “response”, or to weaken someones moral to elicit “political change”. Lamy explains that terrorism can be done as a result of infractions on culture, economics, and/or religion. One example the book gives is Al Qaeda which is a religious based terrorist group that fight due to an oath of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. This group became recognized as a terrorist group after the incident of September 11. These terrorist acts were done on the premise of the belief in jihad. Like most terrorists, Al Qaeda fights for the beliefs for which there is no compromise;

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

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.

Terrorism, at its base definition is a form of political violence, the same as war, apart from war being on a larger scale, so in this sense, acts of terrorism deserve as much justification as acts of war (Held, 2003). However, it is seen that acts of terrorism are unspeakable acts, and any form of terrorism is an immediate threat to society and people’s way of life. This is mainly caused by the influencing of society’s behaviour towards acts that are now described as terrorism, which began during the Pacific War. Propaganda was used to manipulate Western society’s perceptions of the enemy – mainly the Japanese – in order to advance their wartime agendas. Government officials approved propaganda that attempted to dehumanise the Japanese, to make them into a breed of “subhuman” (Dower, 1986). This was to make it easier for soldiers to face and kill the Japanese in combat, as there was hesitation to kill anyone on the battlefield (Dower, 1986). This process of ‘othering’ was an essential part of what was deemed effective propaganda and began to be used outside the military and throughout the public (Aszkielowicz, 2015). The propaganda was seen throughout western society so much, that the racist terms and subhuman representation became a part of society and lodged

Elshtain, professor of ethics at the University of Chicago, argues for a set of positions that may startle some intellectuals: Good and evil exist; they can be defined within reasonably stable standards and norms; and individuals or states acting in pursuit of the good have, again under defined conditions, not just the right to struggle against evil, but the responsibility to do so. Within this framework, Elshtain (without apparent effort) identifies terrorists and terrorism

America was devastated by the terrorist attack on Sept 11. Not many Americans will agree that terrorism is necessary under any circumstances and it is difficult to support the act itself. However, if the principle theory behind consequentialism is that the results of happiness for the greater good of others besides oneself holds true, then the consequentialism and utilitarianism theory is that justice may have to take a back seat to desired results. This may require the need to employ the optimific rule which is the general acceptance within a society would yield better results than drawbacks (Fund of Ethics, p.118). This further promotes the principle of utility. Therefore, even in “the absences of popular support, terrorist may indeed be the one available strategy” (Ethical Life, p. 286). When news spreads of sacrificial lambs carrying explosive backpacks, people are outraged and abhor the rule of religious commitment or patriotism. However, if the result of terrorism is that the results are satisfactory for the greater good of a common cause then it can be said that the theory of utilitarianism was effective. Therefore, “When the act accuses, the results excuses” and “gives a strict understanding of consequentialism (Ethical life, 286)”. If it possible to say that terrorism is the only method to achieve the desired means, then the argument would be sound. In The Ethical Life by Landau (2010), he compares terrorism to modern day society. Landau states that

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.