A nonconsequentialist might try to justify an act or campaign of terrorism in one of two ways. When do their actions become terrorist instead of self-defense? So was the Nazi rule in Germany. Contrary to what many fighters against social or economic oppression, colonial rule, or foreign occupation believe, evils of such magnitude Can terrorism justified 1 they can justify indiscriminate killing and maiming of innocent people are extremely rare.
Whatever else the word may have meant, its ordinary use over more than two centuries has typically indicated two things: But we will not be condemning their actions qua terrorism. One may argue as to the degree of innocence each individual may have. There is room for disagreement on both issues.
Why terrorism cannot be justified. We can still condemn their actions if we reject their judgment of the policies at issue, or if we accept that judgment, but believe that they should have opposed those policies by nonviolent means.
Take a life for a life. The difference is that the ANC deployed terror for the political purpose of destroying an obscene system that would not have been defeated otherwise. He approaches terrorism from the standpoint of just war theory and its principle of noncombatant immunity.
In the event that all political means of mediation have been exhausted, and lives of innocent people are threatened or the basic needs of life food, shelter, sanitation are deprived, then those individuals would be justified in fighting for self preservation through means of terrorism.
Just how certain must we be that terrorism will indeed achieve the goal, while no other method will? Terrorism obviously violates some human rights of its victims.
That kind of terrorism may sometimes be justified, whereas terrorism that targets innocent people never is. One might argue that when in extremis, we cannot apply stringent epistemic standards in deciding how to cope—indeed, if we cannot really know what will work, we must take our chances with what might.
When used by others, it conveyed a strong condemnation of the practice. The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government and that they voted for their president. But more than this, we are also therefore forced to accept that the use of violence against "soft targets" is terrorism in whatever cause it is employed; the difference is that we might support some causes and not others because we see them as morally virtuous or vicious.
The abolitionists and the underground railroad. Its ultimate aim was the reshaping of both society and human nature. The hi-jackings of the s and s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world.
Attempts at justification of terrorism that concede that its victims are innocent seem more promising. Cases where both conditions are met will be extremely rare. Given that the American Congress is a committee that represents the people, the fact that it agrees with the actions of the American government proves that America in its entirety is responsible for the atrocities that it is committing against Muslims Bin Laden The idea of supreme emergency is vague.
In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common citizens. Theories and Cases, Lanham, Md.: Totalitarian terrorism is the most extreme and sustained type of state terrorism.
Another way of settling the issue of wide vs. This violence is not blind or sadistic, but rather aims at intimidation and at some further political, social, or religious goal or, more broadly, at coercion. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse.
Even such a stringent moral rule as the prohibition of deliberate use of violence against innocent people may be overridden, if the disaster that cannot be prevented in any other way is grave enough. The hi-jackings of the s and s brough Is an assassination a terrorist attack or an act of war?
In the case of the Taliban, the strategy is to regain and hold power through terror, and run a state based on the suppression of human rights and the sponsorship of international terrorist attacks against civilian targets. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Terrorism is not considered wrong in itself, but only if it has bad consequences on balance. Surely voting in elections or paying taxes is not enough to make one fair game.The devastation and destruction that terrorism causes has impacted greatly on the USA and the world.
The Beirut barracks bombings have shown how terrorism is not justified, and how it has caused a worldwide issue, involving not only America but France, England and Italy.
Terrorism cannot be justified, as it is nearly always the case that aggressive acts of terrorism are perpetrated by individuals who do not represent the majority of society. Maybe you could argue that "terrorism" is a political term.
But terrorism can not be justified by fanaticism. Religious prejudices should not be put on the scale with an innocent life. Page 1 of 2; Next > Essays Related to Can Terrorism Be Justified.
1. Terrorism and Globalization: Is Terrorism a Part of Globaliz. So, what we can say is that if we agree with the aims of a group, then violence is an ethically acceptable extension of the struggle; and if we disagree, it is not.
These judgments need not be merely subjective but can be weighed up in the same way that any set of political actions are weighed up. Terrorism is never justified.
Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. Is terrorism ever, in any situation, justifiable in this day and age? For any act of terrorism, there is always a political, social, ethnic or religious creed that can be used to justify it.
by someone. To "justify" an act, one must compare it with a legal or ideological sys as a basis of justification.Download