Moral Social Probls

ji hang wu

Terrorismch20.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Philosophy homework help >Moral Social Probls

Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues

Third Edition

Bruce N. Waller

Chapter 20

Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?

• How do we define terrorism? – Definitions are not always neutral • Ex. U.S. official acts can never be terrorism according to

the U.S. State Department

• Is terrorism always an unjustified wrong? – It often involves the killing of innocent people – But is it always wrong?

Terrorism is Always Wrong

• C. A. J. (Tony) Coady – Philosophy fellow with the Australian Research

Counsel – Writes on the ethics of terrorism – Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a

Threatened World • Terrorism Is Always Wrong

– Written in 2002

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady

• What Is Terrorism? – Very difficult to define – Some suggested definitions are:

• The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change

• The premeditated, deliberate, systemic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical disadvantage

• The unlawful use or threat of violence against persons/property to further political or social objectives

• The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady

• Coady’s definition of terrorism –The organized used of violence to target

“innocent” for political reasons

– The questions is: who is innocent? – Whoever is plays a role in the chain of agency: – Some civilians play role – People who make bombs or uniforms don’t – Soldier who are forced to serve: play a role

– MORAL : Just war theory and applicable to the definition. – NO MORAL: Terrorism

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady

• The Just War Tradition – Two key divisions: • Jus ad bellum – the conditions under which it can be

right to resort to war – Common conditions:

1. War must be declared and waged by legitimate authority

2. There must be a just cause for going to war 3. War must be a last resort 4. There must be a reasonable prospect of success 5. The violence used must be proportional to the wrong

being resisted

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady • Jus in bello – concerned with guiding us into the

permissible methods by which we should wage a legitimate war –Two governing principles:

1. Discrimination – limits the kind of violence that can be used

2. Proportionality – limits the degree of response by requiring that the violent methods used do not disproportionately inflict damage

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady

• Objection 1 – Total war (contemporary wars are wars of nation agains nation) – Coady’s answer: Not based reality

1. – SECOND WORLD WAR the objection is based on an abstract understanding or reality during the second world war

2. – EVOLUTION OF OUR EMOTIONAL RESPONSE: Recent conflicts (E.g. Chechnya and Middle East ) in which people have been exposed to indiscriminate bombing of civilians, has shown that people’s outrage. People are not developing a tolerance for cruelty against innocent people but the opposite.

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady

• Objection 2 –War, Terrorism, and ‘Supreme Emergency’(dirty hands story)

Certain necessi`es in life may require the overriding of profound and otherwise "absolute" moral prohibi`ons in extreme situa`ons. This goes back to Machiavelli

– Terrorism is wrong under just war theory, but what about conditions of ‘supreme emergency’

Terrorism is Always Wrong - Coady OBJECTION TO THIS NOTION: General comment: People who support the supreme emergency assume that they know who is good and who is bad. However the Pales`ans could also say that argument: their livelihood threatened or even Bin Laden, you can say that their goal is mistaken but there are so many mistakes in history....

1.It undermines the basic principle : this is the respect for innocent lives 2.What is presupposed in the "supreme emergency" considers the survival

and freedom of poli`cal communi`es as the highest human value. But it is very ques`onable to put poliAcal communiAes higher than individuals.

3.Admission of an excep`on can lead to widespread use of it. (Similar to the first point)

Terrorism Might Sometimes Be Justified

• Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez – Philosophy and religion professor – Director of the Dale Ethics Center – Terrorism, Innocence, and Justice • Terrorism Might Sometimes Be Justified

– Written in 2005

HIS DEFINITION is too narrow: Terrorism is the organized use of violence against civilians or their property, the poli`cal leadership of a na`on, or soldier (who are not combatants in war) for poli`cal purposes. • This includes John Brown • NoAce: the focus on consequences, goals,

Terrorism Might Sometimes Be Justified – Palmer-Fernandez

• Coady’s definition of terrorism is flawed. (Coady’s argument relies too much on principles and ignore many particulars.) – Historical Perspective: Coady does not address the

emergence of anarchist movements that brought a type of violence limited to political change • Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States

– Contemporary terrorism is not restricted solely to targeting persons (can also be property)

Terrorism Might Sometimes Be Justified – Palmer-Fernandez

• Innocence – The definition of innocents as non-combatants does

not work morally, because: • It assumes that the role of the civilian is more like a serf.

Civilians are assumed to be harmless. • If civilians cannot be killed in war because they are innocent,

we must recognize that innocents are always killed in war – not civilians, but morally innocent soldiers.

Expands the number of what is considered innocent or targets by terrorists. Coday's does not discriminate enough. More people are innocent, not legi`mate targets : •Soldiers who are not combatant •Soldiers who have been forced to be combatants (during the firs Persian Gulf War soldiers under the Hussein regime were used as cannon fodder,

• Justice – Are citizens responsible for their government’s actions?

DEMOCRACY: NoAon of non-combatants is relaAve, we are not serves anymore, in a democracy where everyone vote, people are poliAcally engaged and representaAve democracy we cannot say that people are not involved.

• E.g Enemy gangs sending hit men, if these men fail in their mission, their bosses will send other hit men, wouldn't it make sense to kill the bosses and eliminate the danger even if they are not armed?

Conclusion: However in prac`ce it is difficult to do this because we don’t know who is against the war and who is suppor`ng it.