The Morality Of Terrorism

The Morality of Terrorism argues that terrorism violates certain human rights, just war, and consequentialist moral principles, and so is always wrong. In distinguishing "freedom fighting" from terrorism, this study lays down stringent conditions derived from just war theory, for the moral justifiability of "freedom fighting" such as some revolutions, civil wars, and guerrilla warfare. This book then evaluates the morality of actual and possible judicial and military responses to terrorism by targeted governments. An appendix provides a case study (the Palestinian problem) of root causes of political and moralistic-religious terrorism.

The Morality of Terrorism: Religious and Secular Justifications examines ""terrorist tradition"" from its origin in the revealed religions to its present manifestations, which are largely secular though not exclusively so. Important common themes running through all the essays are the moral climate that produces terrorism, the doctrines terrorists used to justify themselves, and the moral predicaments terrorists create. The book is organized into three parts. The essays in Part I focus on religious terror. Topics covered include the successful efforts of Jewish terrorists in the first century to provoke a popular uprising; the myths of Prometheus and Satan; and the myths and fantasies in the minds of terrorists and how these myths are related to the ramshackle world of Western civilization. Part II deals with various forms of state terror. It includes essays such as the French Reign of Terror and Nazi terrorism. Part III, devoted to rebel terror, includes essays such as terrorists' justifications and their abilities to demonstrate sincerity though suffering; and responses to rebel terrorism by communities deeply committed to protecting individual rights.

This book provides a unique insight into the ethical issues and dilemmas facing practitioners and researchers of terrorism and counterterrorism. Ethics play a central if, largely, unrecognised role in most, if not all, issues relevant to terrorism and political violence. These are often most noticeable regarding counterterrorism controversies, while often virtually absent from discussions about academic research practice. At a minimum, ethical issues as they relate to terrorism have rarely been explicitly addressed in a direct or comprehensive manner. The chapters in this edited volume draws on the experience of both practitioners and researchers to explore how a regard to ethical issues might influence and determine research and practice in counter terrorism, and in our understanding of terrorism. Ethics and Terrorism recognizes that there are conflicting and often irreconcilable perspectives from which to view terrorism and terrorism research. In calling for greater attention to these issues, the goal is not to resolve problems, but to explore and clarify the assumptions and dilemmas that underpin our understanding of the personal, institutional and societal ethical boundaries and constraints around terrorism and responses to it. This book will be of value to practitioners and researchers, and to policy makers and the broader interested community. The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of the journal Terrorism and Political Violence.

We are supposed to wage war against Terrorism - but exactly what we are fighting against in this war, there is nearly no consensus about. And, much worse, nearly nobody cares about this conceptual disaster - the main thing being, whether or not you are taking sides with the good guys. This volume is an analytical attempt to end this disaster. What is Terrorism? Are terrorist acts to be defined exclusively on the basis of the characteristics of the respective actions? Or should we restrict such actions to acts performed by non-state organisations? And, most important, is terrorism already by its very nature to be morally condemned? But, having a clear idea of what Terrorism is, would be only the beginning. Rational moral assessment still needs two further components: The relevant facts; and the relevant values and norms. Now, in a field where systematic disinformation has been even proclaimed to be the official policy, facts are obviously very hard to get at. This volume is mainly interested in Ethics: What's wrong with Terrorism? And what is morally right or morally wrong, respectively, with all the different means of Counter-Terrorism? What are the moral boundaries for waging war agains terrorism? What are the right ways of dealing with terrorists? And what about the alleged anti-terrorism wars on Afghanistan and Iraq? With contributions from Marcelo Dascal, Tomis Kapitan, Daniel Messelken, Seumas Miller, Olaf L. Mueller, Igor Primoratz, Charles P. Webel, Per Bauhn, Rüdiger Bittner, C. A. J. (Tony) Coady, Haig Khatchadourian, Georg Meggle, Peter Simpson, Carolin Emcke, Ralf Groetker, Laurence Lustgarten, Thomas Mertens, Aleksandar Pavkovic, Filimon Peonidis, Janna Thompson, Véronique Zanetti

What is terrorism? How is it different from other kinds of political violence? Why exactly is it wrong? Why is war often thought capable of being justified? On what grounds should we judge when the use of violence is morally acceptable? It is often thought that using violence to uphold and enforce the rule of law can be justified, that violence used in self-defense is acceptable, and that some liberation movements can be excused for using violence--but that terrorism is always wrong. How persuasive are these arguments, and on what bases should we judge them? How Terrorism is Wrong collects articles by Virginia Held along with much new material. It offers a moral assessment of various forms of political violence, with terrorism the focus of much of the discussion. Here and throughout, Held examines possible causes discussed, including the connection between terrorism and humiliation. Held also considers military intervention, conventional war, intervention to protect human rights, violence to prevent political change, and the status and requirements of international law. She looks at the cases of Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Finally, she explores questions of who has legitimate authority to engage in justifiable uses of violence, whether groups can be responsible for ethnic violence, and how the media should cover terrorism. Held discusses appropriate ways of engaging in moral evaluation and improving our moral recommendations concerning the uses of violence. Just war theory has been developed for violence between the military forces of conflicting states, but much contemporary political violence is not of this kind. Held considers the guidance offered by such traditional moral theories as Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, and also examines what the newer approach of the ethics of care can contribute to our evaluations of violence. Care is obviously antithetical to violence since violence destroys what care takes pains to build; but the ethics of care recognizes that violence is not likely to disappear from human affairs, and can offer realistic understandings of how best to reduce it.

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

This is the first book to address philosophically the moral and political underpinnings of terrorism and anti-terrorism. It brings together authors with different attitudes and original perspectives on attitudes and ethical and practical justifications for terrorism.

Is terrorism ever morally justified? How should historical and cultural factors be taken into account in judging the morality of terrorist acts? What are the ethical limits of state counter-terrorism?For three decades the Provisional Irish Republican Army waged an 'armed struggle' against what it considered to be the British occupation of Northern Ireland. To its supporters, the IRA was the legitimate army of Ireland, fighting to force a British withdrawal as a prelude to the re-unification of the Irish nation. To its enemies, the IRA was an illegal, fanatical, terrorist organization whose members were criminals willing to sacrifice innocent lives in pursuit of its ideological obsession. At the centre of the conflict were the then unconventional tactics employed by the IRA, including sectarian killings, political assassinations, and bombings that devastated urban centres - tactics that have become increasingly commonplace in the post-9/11 world.This book is the first detailed philosophical examination of the morality of the IRA's violent campaign, and of the British government's attempts to end it. Written in clear, accessible prose, it is essential reading for anyone wishing to acquire a deeper understanding of one of the paradigmatic conflicts of the late 20th century.