terrrism
Can terrorism ever be justified?
Name: Clement aro
School: Harris boys east Dulwich
The question can:” terrorism be justified” is a frequently pondered question by many top politicians and philosophers, which has recently been analysed in greater depth and profundity due to the recent acts of “terrorism” that have been reported around the world through many media sources, such as newspapers. This essay will analyse in extent two fundamental questions. The first is a conceptual question, which asks: “what is terrorism?” and the other is a moral question: “can terrorism ever be morally justified? “. Both these questions however, come under the broad bracket which refers to the act of terrorism and its definition. Many philosophers have argued about what the actual definition for Terrorism is, but the dictionary definition for this often confused word is: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Therefore this discounts the cases of random and isolated acts of terror, as they are seen as not having any purpose such as coercion, or set up to achieve any political change.
Consequentialists are a group of people which consider terrorism in the same way they would consider their actions and everything they do, as always having their own repercussions and consequences, and would then consider terrorism as only acceptable when the consequences are positive and bring about the desired effect which would put the act in balance. Conversely Deontologists argue that the view on whether an act is considered terrorism doesn’t just take into consideration the consequences, but also whether the act in itself is moral. This debate is long going concerning many different cases, including the September 11th attack of 2001, and the author of the book Law, R. (2009) Terrorism, Cambridge Polity Pg 2: A History describes searching for a definition for the word Terrorism as “venturing into a minefield” as there is always something to consider edit with
Name: Clement aro
School: Harris boys east Dulwich
The question can:” terrorism be justified” is a frequently pondered question by many top politicians and philosophers, which has recently been analysed in greater depth and profundity due to the recent acts of “terrorism” that have been reported around the world through many media sources, such as newspapers. This essay will analyse in extent two fundamental questions. The first is a conceptual question, which asks: “what is terrorism?” and the other is a moral question: “can terrorism ever be morally justified? “. Both these questions however, come under the broad bracket which refers to the act of terrorism and its definition. Many philosophers have argued about what the actual definition for Terrorism is, but the dictionary definition for this often confused word is: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Therefore this discounts the cases of random and isolated acts of terror, as they are seen as not having any purpose such as coercion, or set up to achieve any political change.
Consequentialists are a group of people which consider terrorism in the same way they would consider their actions and everything they do, as always having their own repercussions and consequences, and would then consider terrorism as only acceptable when the consequences are positive and bring about the desired effect which would put the act in balance. Conversely Deontologists argue that the view on whether an act is considered terrorism doesn’t just take into consideration the consequences, but also whether the act in itself is moral. This debate is long going concerning many different cases, including the September 11th attack of 2001, and the author of the book Law, R. (2009) Terrorism, Cambridge Polity Pg 2: A History describes searching for a definition for the word Terrorism as “venturing into a minefield” as there is always something to consider edit with