“Excuse Me”, I’m a Terrorist, Research Paper Example

Life is filled with infinite possibilities which make it very difficult if not impossible for moral values to have an absolute nature. The members of any society can and almost always reach a consensus regarding acceptable moral conduct but one can always find circumstances in which the violations of particular moral values can be justified. No reasonable person would condone stealing but they may sympathize with a poor, hungry child who could have died had he not stolen food. Given the circumstances, the actions of the child might come as the right one because the corrupt society forced him into a corner where he had no other choice. Similarly, most of us would never agree that terrorism is an acceptable form of self-expression under any scenario. But it’s possible that our views may change under certain circumstances once we get a better grasp of the factors that force people to go for such extreme measures.

Many people have attempted to answer the question whether acts of terrorism can have moral or ethical basis. The opponents argue that terrorism can never be justified under any circumstance and they point out that UN takes the same position as it declared in 2007 that terrorism is unjustified. Before the debate continues, it is important to understand what does the word ‘terrorism’ means in the context of this paper. This paper defines terrorism as an act of violence against random noncombatants with the intention of spreading fear in the society or using noncombatants as means to spread fear and unpopular ideas in the society. This paper attempts to investigate whether terrorism can be justified in terms of consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics.

Terrorism is often seen as the lethal or violent targeting of non combatants for political reasons (Evans 11). In terms of ethics this means that we are looking at terrorism in its salient features of the practice of intentional targeting non combatants and not at looking at the context of the crime. The focus of this paper is the practice of terrorism by small groups as compared to that of a large army and warfare. This broad distinction is to ensure that the justification of terrorism and acts of terrorism is limited to groups that may have been pushed into a corner rather than voluntary acts of terrorism. The other reason is that when we debate the justification of violence, we also include wars between states as well as retaliation efforts in addition to acts of terrorism by groups. Thus, the emphasis of this paper is on acts of terrorism against innocent civilians.

Held (59) pointed out that there are different types of terrorism, just like war. This is not to imply that only acts of terrorism by groups are condemnable while states have free reign on acts of terrorism. What Held implies is that authoritarian governments engage in terrorism when they impose undesirable laws and policies on their citizens. In other words, terrorism has been embraced as an atrocious and unjustified act in every situation unlike wars. Thus, the many aspects of terrorism can be analyzed in an unbiased manner only when the reasons behind the acts of terrorism are understood.

One of the arguments put forward to justify acts of terrorism is that the deliberate killing of few people can result in the pleasure for far greater number of people. This ideology or consequentialism way of thinking has been used to justify public or political violence against discriminated groups. An example of this ideology is Leon Trotsky (Corlett 1) who argued that communist revolution did not require the revolutionaries to make use of terrorism but rather it requires that to secure revolutionary power will require any means even through terrorism. Therefore, according to Trotsky, terrorism can be a justifiable form of violence for self defense or an act of intimidation against oppressive forces (Corlett 1). Trotsky’s views are in compliant with Hare’s views. To Hare, terrorism from nationalists’ point of view means that terrorism preludes a revolution where the interests of a greater group are being achieved. Thus, acts of terrorism are justified in such circumstances because terrorism is a mean to achieve greater good for the sake of the general public.

Wilkins (33) points out that terrorism used in this manner would have its own problems if revolution involves terrorist acts. This makes it very difficult to make the distinction when one act begins or another ends. For example, following the attacks of 9/11, America retaliated against the countries whose regimes it thought was supporting terrorist groups. Such an act is comes under the negative aspect of the consequential view of terrorism. This is because even though America went out to deal with terrorist groups, its own actions ended up causing damage to the general public in those countries. In this case, Hare would argue that the positive aspect of the consequentialism view is that terrorism can assist in the achievement of means for the greater group where there are no other means available. For example, the toppling of governments when others means have failed or are not available.

The same positive view is held by Valls (68) when he mentions Walzer’s 1992 comment on terrorism as a positive consequentialism act. According to Valls, any state or group that uses terrorism to defend itself against acts of aggression, where aggression in this case is taken to be the violent acts on territory or its political independence is justifiable. Such a view then makes the retaliation of the US to terrorism or terrorist groups, a justified act. This leads us to an earlier argument that terrorist acts when committed by states or governments are often viewed as justified by many. This view is held by Held (1), who observes that that those in power make use of violence as a means to achieve political change. When a nation or government makes use of war or violence to achieve political change or defend itself against aggression, the government actions are justified. According to those who subscribe to the consequential point of view, terrorism is justified when violence is used to achieve revolution as a last means, used to defend territory, fight against aggression and the protection of a people by a nation or state. Meanwhile terrorism or violence committed by non-state individuals is not justified though they may be fighting or suffering for the greater good.

On the other hand, the deontological approach is more restrictive in justifying acts of terrorism. To the deontologists, the act of terrorism is justified depending on the consequence. According to this doctrine, the act of terrorism is justified since we are obligated to assist others even by means of terrorism. The most common holders of this view are Virginia Held who argued that terrorism is justified as a means of distributing rights and Coady who wrote the essay “Terrorism, Morality and Supreme Emergency”. Coady tried to approach the justification aspect of terrorism through the targeting of non combatant from the view of deontology. He noted that terrorism is not one of the only political violence against people but it also depends on the degree of violence. He discussed the deontological justification of terrorism on two broad aspects. The first dealt with the prima facie obligation that made people not to kill innocent which is often overridden by the obligation to advance the good of the greater community. Additionally, moral rules can be violated in extreme situations but this violation is still wrong.

The other theorist that subscribe to this position is Virginia Held who holds a wider notion of terrorism where terrorism is justified purely on the basis of issuance of rights. In her view, if the rights of an individual or a group are not respected, then terrorism can be used to make sure those such rights are respected. In other words, when we hold on to the deontological approach, we are trying to justify terrorism in circumstances where terrorism can be used for greater good in terms of basic human rights and justice.

There are many instances in this world where terrorism for the sake of rights and justice of persons of groups can be justified. Such scenarios where deontological justification is right or wrong can be seen in places like Palestine, Al-Qaida and the IRA terrorists. The Palestinian resentment of Israel and their military actions are justified. On the other hand, the Israel actions are also justified. This is because following 1948; Israel became an independent state who has an obligation to ensure that its citizens have access to economic, political, social and religious rights. Thus, Palestinian fighters are morally wrong to infringe on the rights of an established nation but they do have the right to have a country where they can enjoy the same rights as their Israeli counterparts. Towards this end, both sides are morally right and wrong to be involved in terrorist acts against each other.

In other words, on the deontological approach such factions can be considered just if they fight with the intention of gaining rights for their groups. They are also just since their terrorist actions are in response to the presence of clear danger to their own existence. Other such examples are Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor and Sudan where the innocent need to be protected from genocides. Thus, factions engaging in acts of terrorism against those responsible for genocide are morally wrong because they are fighting to ensure the protection of their own people.

There are other instances, too when deontological theorists have tried to justify acts of terrorism. For example, Smilansky (10) views actions of terrorism to be just if they are able to galvanize the attention of the public to the plight of people. Towards this end, terrorism can be used to draw the attention of people to the people or groups that have been denied their rights to basic food, shelter and medicine. Therefore, terrorism is seen as just if it is able to positively influence actions of a nation, group or state towards the meeting of the needs of those who are in flight. However, though terrorism has been able to do this, it is globally viewed as immoral and not an acceptable means of gaining the rights of a particular group/s. This is because the act in itself is seen as a violation of basic human rights. Moreover, if the same acts of terrorism were to be directed to the terrorist groups they would also feel violated. The argument questions whether those engaging in acts of terrorism would find the same acts directed towards them as just or ethical? If not, then why do they perform acts of terrorism on others?

One of the aspects that make terrorism seem deontologically justified is its ability to topple dictator regimes and replace them with democracy (Pojman 23). This is more prevalent in third world countries where through acts of terrorism, the populations are able to topple over dictatorial regimes. Such acts are also seen as just when terrorism or violent acts have been used to topple out regimes like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Such nations or regions can only improve in terms of democracy; social, political, economic and religious rights if dictatorial regimes are toppled. The argument can be made that the regimes have had a more negative impact than the terrorist or violent acts of war against the people. With regimes like this having no positive effect on their people and their refusal to leave power, terrorism and violence become valid options to achieve justice for the people (Pojman 32). This is more in societies where the society lacks other means of achieving the rights for its people except the use of terrorism.

On the other hand, when terrorism is used in this manner, it is also met by resistance (Kamm 385). Resistance comes from those who supported the oppressive forces or rulers. Such is the case in Afghanistan and Iraq where terrorism has arisen among the insurgence opposed to to the invasion by American and allied forces. In this scenario, terrorism would be unjustified under the idea of deontology which is a weakness of deontology. This is because, the use of military force to topple over oppressive powers and rulers has in the end resulted in more wars as well as the rise of warlords who further oppress the people. If terrorism is just, why would American and allied forces view insurgence as terrorists? Insurgents are only responding to the military actions within these regions because invasion prevents the locals from enjoying their social, religious, political and economic rights. The fact that the military and the foreign governments are imposing ideologies on these people that do not comply with the local doctrines and culture is also an act of terrorism. The use of force upon the locals Iraq and Afghanistan to conform to the western ideology is also an act of terrorism. Therefore, insurgents’ actions are justified if we assume that they are opposing the use of force by the invaders to protect their economic, political, social and religious rights.

The other justification for terrorism is based on the principle of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics looks at the ethical thought on virtuous aspects of the individual or our own actions. Virtue ethics is unlike other ethical theories like the Kantian or Utilitarian approaches that are based on modern ethical thought and focus on reason and decision making in certain situations. Virtue ethics looks at how the individual views themselves in terms of overall virtuousness and their ability to make ethical decisions. The virtue approach to ethics looks at how our responses to ethics are in conformance with ideal virtues that result in the full development of humanity. Therefore, are there such ideal virtues in a person who commits acts of terrorism?  When applying this principle, it is vital that one looks at whether there are dispositions or habits that make it possible for them to act according to their highest potential in their character based on values like beauty and truth. Towards this effort we find that if terrorism is to be justified according to the virtue ethics, we need to look at the potential of the characters that carry out the terrorist attacks.

Most often than not, terrorists are considered to be very strong in character, brave and committed to their cause. These persons are marked by virtues of courage, tolerance, fidelity and integrity among others as they carry out their terrorist acts. Therefore, to the virtue of ethics terrorists and their actions are justified. This is more so seen in persons who are able to confidently carry out suicide missions, engage in a warfare even when danger is eminent, fight for their causes and those of their groups despite the wide spread opposition. They are able to engage in selfless acts of giving their lives and those they love just to pass a message across or fight for the rights of their group. The pro of this action is their ability to carry out their mission bravely until the very end in a selfless act of sacrifice.

Terrorists around the world have been known to be capable of putting their perspectives towards this approach very effectively. It is this approach that is also used as the guiding principle in their indoctrination, training and recruitment. The fact remains that such individuals can be considered ethical because they are able to determine the standards of behavior that make their actions ethical. They are able to constructively develop reasons that make their actions justifiable or ethical. They have been able to convince us that through terrorist acts they are fighting for civil rights and human rights for their people. They have fought bravely and drawn the world’s attention to the plight of their people and that of their groups in terms of political, economic, social and religious oppression they face.

Terrorists have effectively made terrorism, terrorist wars and any act of terrorism seem to be an ethical approach to solving serious problems within our society. Their firm stands and ability to defend their faith and beliefs has made terrorism become an ethical feature than can be used to defend the rights of the non combatants. It is their blind belief in their cause that makes them brave and confident in their actions. They also set standards as to when it is right or ethical to violate the rights of innocent people for the sake of the greater good. The ability of a person to establish ethical aspects in the decisions has helped justify acts of terrorism. On the other hand, those that are able to establish valid and virtuous reason as to why terrorism is not justified also have a valid cause.

For example, the fact that America and the western nations have been able to realize and establish virtues have made it possible for them to define terrorism and fight groups in the name of terrorism. It is this ability that has allowed them to justify their decisions to invade countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or wage war on nations like Cuba. Nonetheless, western nations have found it difficult over the years to agree upon the ethical aspects of violence. It is for this reason that over the years, statesmen like Secretaries of defense, foreign ambassadors or those involved in foreign affairs often have to justify the conflicts again and again. This has become more difficult due to various perspectives and thoughts on terrorism in different countries. The question this paper asks is whether the choices made by American and other Western states have been ethically right even when they involved conflicts.

The main problem is that terrorism through virtuous ethics develops strong characteristics that drive out any remaining ounce of compassion. For this reason, those engaging in acts of conflict are driven by a strong desire to defend their cause to the point that they tend to ignore the rights of innocent people. The problem with looking at terrorist acts through virtuous ethics is that it denies the actor a chance to make moral decisions. Such a scenario is evident when innocent civilians are often the victims of terrorist attacks. Terrorists often ignore such casualties as a small price for their ethical causes (Kamm 389).

In a nutshell, the justification of terrorism then draws us close to the definition of terrorism and the various acts of terrorism. Indeed, terrorism is often seen as the lethal or violent targeting of non combatants for political reasons. Thus, the broad distinction is made to the fact that, the justification of terrorism and acts of terrorism has been limited to the size o the group or the means use to commit the acts of terrorism. Therefore, there are many instances in this world where terrorism for the sake of rights and justice of persons of groups can be justified. Such scenarios where deontological justification is right or wrong are seen in places like the Palestine, Al-Qaida and the IRA terrorists. Terrorists are considered to be people who are very strong in character, brave and committed to their course. Terrorists have effectively made terrorism; terrorist wars and any act of terrorism seem to be an ethical approach to solving serious problems within our society.

The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, the ousting of Saddam and search for Osama bin Laden resulted in many casualties of war. The Taliban and Al-Qaida too have lost compassion towards their own people and foreign soldiers who are caught in the cross fire. Suicide bombers also do not consider the effects their actions have on innocent people as well as the effects their actions have on their own families.  It is this lack of compassion on the part of the terrorist that makes their actions lack the ethical aspect.

In the end, consequentialism seems the most logical approach because it tries to ensure that the good that comes out of a conflict exceeds the price that is paid. Moreover, conflicts with noble intentions have long lasting impact even after they are over. When nations go to war, they are bound to lose some soldiers but if the war brings great potential for everlasting peace, the loss of soldiers, though still sad, doesn’t go in vain. Sometimes, peace cannot be achieved though noble means only.

Work Cited

Coady, Tony. Terrorism, Just War and Supreme Emergency, In Coady/O’Keefe. Berlin: Springer, 2002. Print.

Corlett, Angelo. Can Terrorism be Morally Justified? Public Affairs Quarterly, 10(3), 1996.

Danner, Mark. Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. New York: New York Review of Books, 2004. Print.

Evans, Mark, Ed. Just War Theory. A Reappraisal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005. Print.

Held, Virginia. Terrorism and War. The Journal of Ethics, 8(1), 59-75, 2006. Print.

Kamm, Frances. Terror and Collateral Damage: Are They Permissible? Journal of Ethics, 9, 381-401, 2005. Print.

Pojman, Louis. Deontological Ethics, Moral Philosophy, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998. Print.

Smilansky, Saul. Ethics. California: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print.

Valls, Andrew. Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and Cases. Boston: Rowman and Littlefield Publications, 2000. Print.

Wilkins, Taylor. Terrorism and Collective Responsibility. New York: Routledge Publication, 1992. Print.