Is Terrorism Ever Morally Defensible?
The term terrorism has many different definitions. The most accurate definition of terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political purposes.1 Terrorism is based on an act of violence. It kills, hurts or injures many people who are innocent for the reason of making a point or for political objectives. Most of the acts of violence caused from terrorism is either manipulated by another person or leader or is intended to make a strong point from the act of violence. The term ethnocentrism can also influence terrorists because they may feel that their views or culture should over rule or power of everybody else. For example, the Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group that was formed originally from six confederate Caucasian men who manipulate their group into violent acts costing lives of innocent people ("Spartacus Educational: Ku Klux Klan" 10/20/2011). The act of terrorism causes violence, deaths, conflicts or wars, devastation, mourning of the deaths of innocent people, loss for families, damage to our environment and society etc. There are not many arguments that conclude to why terrorism is understandable or justifiable in our society. The violent act of terrorism is not and will not ever be morally defensible. Terrorism evidently proves how it affects innocent bystanders and their families, what the act of terrorism leads to after the cause. These are contributing themes to relay and evidently prove why terrorism is not morally defensible. Terrorist attacks are unknown and can happen anywhere at any time. Usually these terrorist attacks tend to occur in public areas where it is either a significant location or in a public area with many civilians. Either way, the location of where the terrorist attack takes place will always include the loss of lives of innocent people or civilians. It is morally right or defensible for terrorists to take the lives of innocent people to prove a political point, or even a general point? The obvious answer to most human beings and society, is no. Taking lives of innocent people is unjustifiable and morally wrong, especially if the act is intentional. Every act of terrorism is illegal. “At the present time, I3 international conventions or protocols exist that prohibit specific acts of terrorism. These arguments have been developed and are maintained under the auspices of the UN and stand as the express will for the world community… it became abundantly clear that it was necessary to do more than simply declare terrorism to be contrary to law, it became necessary to deal with the issue on a global basis. International law is clear: terrorism is a crime” (Michael 2008). Though it is a crime, it does not matter because the acts of terrorism are still the same; morally wrong. In the article Terrorism, Morality, and Supreme Emergency written by C. A. J. Coady he states “The second thing is that the wrong of terrorism, even on my relatively restricted definition, is not undifferentiated. For one thing, attacks upon noncombatant property can be much less grave a matter than direct attacks upon life and limb. There is certainly a moral presumption against such attacks, but it may be rebuttable given grave enough reasons. Presumably, no one thinks that the property of innocent persons is of such significance that nothing could ever justify its confiscation or even destruction” (Coady,2014). When it states ‘no one thinks that the property of innocent persons is of such significance that nothing could ever justify’ (Coady, 2014), this may conclude a justification for terrorists to act upon their attack. The terrorists may target innocent people because it has no relation to anything or anyone. It could also be the fact that they do not care about the innocent lives, they care about the point that they are trying to prove. Not only are the terrorist and terrorist acts are taking lives of innocent...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document