Why Is Terrorism Ethically Wrong

America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism

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.

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.

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).

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).

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

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.

They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common

Terrorism, in a modern day perspective, has been molded as a Middle Eastern threat to Western Civilization; although the whole idea of terrorism itself has existed for ages. Undoubtedly, “The War on Terror,” is a western form of saying to depict the general aspect of terrorism. Through all aspects of the world, terrorism, is defined as an act of unruly and warlike tactics that mainly creates harm to civilians. Usually, these acts of violence are not simply for the use of harming citizens, but to voice specific mutinous organizations that do not comprehend with the standard civilization. This analysis will numerically discuss the main aspects of the United States intervention with terrorism, past terrorist acts, and a modern day

In this essay I will examine and discuss the issue “is terrorism always wrong by definition?” taking into consideration the questions raised above. The rationale behind this essay is to explore the different approaches used to define terrorism, the nature of terrorism and whether terrorism can be justifiable in a certain way. To understand the wide range of definitions, I will compare and contrast the different approaches scholars used to define terrorism. Alongside this I will use some historical examples to explore the topic further.

The course of this analysis has moved from an established definition of political violence and terrorism, to a normative framework primarily based off the work of Honderich, and into an analysis of four different cases of terrorism. Two cases were representative of justified terrorism and political violence, where I analyzed the Algerian War of Independence and the liberation struggle in South Africa during the apartheid. The two cases that followed were examples of unjustified terrorism, assessing the global terrorist group, al Qaeda, and anti-abortion militants. My investigation of these four cases yields that the justification of terrorism and political violence cannot be a universally assessed. The justification must be determined on a

The definition of terrorism cannot be separated from this idea, as it regards human life as simply, in particular terms, an instrument for societal progression. When thought about in that way, a human life may be no more valuable than a political campaign or a protest. In the end, that is most certainly untrue, and terrorism is seen to break each of Kant’s three systematic deductions, that one could consider that Kant would completely reject the usage of terrorism for any kind of political use

When one is coming to understand terrorism and all of its components, a generally accepted definition is hard to come by because it tends to be described through the “subjective outlook of the definer” (Ganor, 2002). This idea has best been described as saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Laqueur, 1987). For example, Osama Bin Laden, the man who is most known in the development of the plans for the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, was most likely seen as a freedom fighter in the eyes of those in support of Al-Qaeda, while Americans and people all around the world viewed his actions as one of a terrorist. Terrorism is not this tangible object that can be defined as one thing and is applied

With the recent terrorist attack in Paris, France the topic of terrorism may be a very touchy subject. Especially in the view that what the terrorists did could be considered to not be wrong. These terrorist attacks have affected me more than I ever thought possible and though it it very unfortuante what happened, I have allowed myself to understand ways in which these attacks may not have been so wrong. My first instincts regarding this topic was that there is no possible way anyone could convince me that terrorism is anything but wrong, but somehow my opinion has been mildly swayed. Considering how much death and pain results from terrorism, it is hard to believe that anyone could feel anything but negative attitudes

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.