How do they use terror? Furthermore, groups that resort to terrorism play into the hands of their opponents; states suffering from terrorism can win powerful support from similarly affected nations, such as the USA, in combating this threat. With a little help from the Indians We have created a legal system to create change as well as protect the public.
Yet whereas genocide, expulsion, or enslavement of an entire people might be thought a moral disaster that may be fended off by any means, its loss of political independence is, at most, a political disaster.
An attack on the White House would impose a significant impact on our current government and public climate. Kant believes in a universal law. 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.
Maybe then, a word other than terrorism should be used in this instance. We might consider severing the connection if Honderich offered a good reason for doing so. Nevertheless, unlike many others, I do not confuse revolutionary violence with terrorism, or operations that constitute political acts with others that do not.
These terrorists can vote, form groups and foundations, peacefully protest, and write letters to our elected officials. Terrorism is usually understood as a type of violence. I find this vague and too permissive.
Is success measured by number of deaths or the fall of the house of Bush? The account presupposes a certain understanding of responsibility and liability: This act of terrorism must be geared towards those responsible with the insurance that no innocent civilian lives are lost.
It also takes people hostage, by hijacking planes and in other ways. There is a much more damaging objection. Indeed, history may not offer a single example. In what follows I shall endeavour to explore a number of issues that confront academics when discussing the judgement of terrorism.
In most justifications provided for terrorism, such as in Answer 2, it is viewed as the only way to attack an occupying army, but notice the logical fallacy here. Both sought to impose total political control on society.
The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified.Can terrorism ever be morally justified?
Igor Primoratz writes on the nature of terrorism and whether it is possible to defend terrorist attacks in isolated cases. He argues that definitions of terrorism cannot be based on the identity of those resorting to it and must therefore be extended to include ‘state terrorism’. Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Yes, by the above definition terrorism can be justified in the path of better and stronger nation, sometimes terrorism is the only answer. We. Terrorism when inflicted on innocent civilians can never be justified. Killing others for any reason other than self-defense is morally reprehensible.
Kant believes in a universal law. Terrorism is now a well established feature of world politics and conflict. Indeed, the literature on this particular form of political violence is seemingly endless. This paper shall take precedence with the highly contested issue of whether terrorism can ever be justified.
Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments. You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page. Research Essay: Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.“ This is a popular quote regarding the state of terrorism, and how certain people may consider terrorism justifiable.Download