Yaricza Flores
Philosophy: Ethics
Professor Thompson
December 11, 2013
Terrorism & War According to the Merriam Webster dictionary terrorism is the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Terrorism is constantly associated with war because it is usually retaliation when a terrorist act takes place. The ethical definition of “terrorist acts” typically involve 4 characteristics; they involve the use of violence of the threat of violence, they are politically motivated, they are perpetrated by subnational groups or individuals, and they target innocents. Terrorism and wars have been a huge issue in our society for years now. I will go over the Nathanson and Jaggar view of terrorism then I will explain which view I agree with and why. Stephen Nathason’s view argues to show that terrorism cannot be morally justified. Nathanson’s view aims to avoid hypocrisy by providing both a definition of terrorism that is neutral with respect to whom commits the act and moral judgments of terrorism that come from consistent, even-handed application of moral criteria. His definition of terrorist acts states acts of serious, deliberate violence or destruction generally committed by groups as part as a campaign to promote a political or social agenda whom usually target a limited number of people but aim to influence a larger group or leader in charge of group where they either kill or injure innocent people or pose a serious threat to them. He argues that the definition helps because it allows to distinguished the difference amongst terrorism and other acts of violence. It allows us to indentify the moral crux of the problem with terrorism. In which, the problem with terrorism isn’t just because it is violent, political, or intended to influence others but in fact that terrorisms main problem is that it kills and injures innocent people. Which brings up the question is harming innocents allowable? Nathanson goes to criticize the arguments that try to defend when it is allowable to harm innocent people. He goes to show that their arguments fail because they can be applied to other situations. He believes the standard defenses lean too heavily on what was intended and what is foreseen. He argues for a position where he thinks it allows him to claim that terrorist attacks on civilians is wrong and at the same time to claim some attacks that cause civilian deaths are morally justified. Nathanson’s approach requires military planners to take positive steps to avoid or at least minimize civilian damage, even if it increases the danger to the military forces. He states that “not intending” to harm civilians is not good enough so therefore military planners must exert themselves, must bend over backwards to avoid harming civilians. Nathanson concludes that terrorism cannot be morally justified but we must set up principles that can condemn terrorism and justify warfare that is genuinely defensive. Alison Jaggar’s view argues to show that terrorism could be justified. Jaggar provides a very board definition of “terrorism” intended to clarify the discussion. She concludes that using her definition; it is possible that some acts of terrorism could be morally permissible. But she argues that those wishing to use terrorism have a very heavy burden of proof. Jaggars definition of terrorism says it is the use of extreme threats or violence designed to intimidated or subjugate governments, groups, or individuals. It is a tactic of coercion intended to promote further ends that in them may be good, bad, or indifferent. It may be practiced by governments or international bodies or forces, sub-state groups or even individuals in which their 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 are the governments, groups, or individuals they wish to intimidate. She argues
