Sociology and Philosophy quiz

1. Between preventive, preemptive, and defensive/punitive military actions, which does Boyle specifically address in this article?

Boyle addresses defensive/punitive military action and suggests that the then Obama administration policy of counterterrorism as operating at cross-purposes.

2. According to Boyle, what is the similarity between deterrence and terrorism? The difference?

Deterrence in the context of Boyle is the United States discouraging acts of terror by using terror i.e. through attempts to instill fear and doubt in terrorists with respect to what the consequences of their actions may be; what measures the United States may use to punish them.

3. How does Boyle define “terrorism?” Does this definition exclude any cases it should not, or include any cases it should not?

Boyle defines terrorism as seeking to overwhelm one’s enemies by force and destruction of their immediate population by means of genocide. As for the intention behind terrorism, Boyle sees it as approach countries and individual entities use to influence decisions, bring about fear and demoralization.

4. What does Boyle ultimately conclude about whether transnational leadership is required by the “proper authority” criterion of just war theory?

Boyle ultimately concludes that nations that place themselves in the position of transnational leadership need to have the best of intentions when it comes to global peace and development. Good intentions qualify an entity as a proper authority.

5. What were traditionally considered just causes by just war theorists? Why, according to Boyle, do contemporary just war theorists only support one of them?

Just cause by war theorists talks about 20th century development against terror that is not preventative or punitive; where punishment is reserved for those who are a member of the community, for defensive and deterrent purposes of the greater good of the community . According to Boyle also, contemporary just war theorists only support one of them since external threats are never part and parcel of the community; punishing terrorists with a lot of collateral damage involved never serves the common good of the community.

6. What is the difference between a just cause and a right intention? Why is it possible that a particular military conflict might be acceptable according to the former criteria but yet unacceptable according to the latter?

A just intent is on part of authority while a right intention is on individual people. It is possible that a particular military conflict be acceptable according to a just cause because it will be painted as meant to seek the greater good of world peace. Unacceptability of the latter stems from the fact that the intention of individual people is hardly put to consideration.

7. Does Boyle believe just war theory can support military actions against non-polities? Explain.

Boyle is of the belief that the just war theory can be supportive to military actions against non-polities because it usually seeks the greater good. The reasoning here is that it is okay for a few people to die so that more can live in peace.

8. Why does Boyle say that the “wrong-making” factors on the terrorists part do not automatically make military actions against them just?

Boyle is of the opinion that the military actions against terrorists are terror-oriented themselves because the lives of innocent people are lost every now and then.

9. What does Boyle say justifies response to a terrorist attack after it has already been carried out and therefore cannot be defended against?

Response to a terrorist attack after it has already been carried out is always about a states that support the justly war on terror with a larger aim to stop oppression.

10. What does Boyle say about war aims such as the killing of all terrorists?

Boyle says that war aims such as the killing of all terrorists are punitive and can only be valid if they do not affect non polities.

11. What does Boyle say about just causes and oppression?

Boyle is of the opinion that just causes are partly oppressive because a lot of collateral damage is involved.