Thomas Cahill Professor Jason Gardner Present Moral Problems 7 March 2024 Objections and Restructuring of Kamm’s Argument Regarding Terrorism In F.M Kamm’s “Terror and Collateral Damage: Are They Permissible?”, Kamm addresses the issue with current war theory and its failure to account for all actions seen in modern war. She attempts to determine if these unaddressed actions are permissible, one of the topics regarding terror killing and terror, in general (2.1). She tries to determine whether terror killings and inciting terror are morally permissible. While complicated, Kamm argues that terror killings are not permissible. However, intentionally inciting harm without killing can potentially be permissible, depending on the context. To officially…show more content… She argues that since both have the same result of expanding the terrorists’ cause, it would make sense to choose the “lesser evil”: temporarily disabling rationality. Here, Kamm fails to consider the true implications of disabling rationality. Consider 9/11, a well-known terrorist attack in which killing and bombing resulted in a cease of rationality in Americans and their government. This resulted in the Iraq War, which further increased the death count on both sides. Furthermore, there are still lasting impacts in which people suffer from the actions of 9/11. Islamophobia, the discrimination and stereotyping of members of the Islamic faith, is a current issue within the United States. One can argue that this lack of rationality led to the invasion of a foreign nation, resulting in many deaths. Furthermore, one can argue that there is evidence that Americans still struggle with rationality, as people express their fear of safety through demeaning and attacking members of the Islamic faith. It seems the lasting impacts of 9/11 (casualties of war, ongoing fear of harm among Islamic populations) are worse than the actual killings…show more content… While Kamm does not consider the seriousness of a lack of rationality within of society, Kamm progresses her argument to consider multiple groups. Via the Trolley Problem, we can determine it is not moral to kill a member of one group to save a life in a different group. However, Kamm introduces a situation in which you can push someone off a bridge (paralyzing him), to save a life. Kamm argues that the harm comes at a lesser expense than death, so it is permissible to push the individual off the bridge. Similarly, Kamm argues that it is okay to undermine rationality in one group to avoid killing in another if the means of disrupting rationality do not arrive via killing. Combined with this idea, Kamm introduces what she calls the Principle of Secondary Permissibility: stating that the result of one case cannot allow you to always say the action is permissible. Actions can be impermissible or permissible in different
