Terrorism and the Ethics of War
Stephen Nathanson
Language: English
Pages: 328
ISBN: 0521137160
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
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.
Mastermind: The Many Faces of the 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism
Politika (Tom Clancy's Power Plays, Book 1)
whether a war is justified often depends on the type of political goals that a war is meant to promote. The idea that the goals and purposes of a war matter to its justification is found in both commonsense morality and just war theory. Each of these views accepts the idea that going to war is sometimes morally justified and sometimes not. This differs from the usual ways of thinking about terrorism. The usual view is that terrorism is always wrong and thus can never be morally justified. That is why
violence, how can we know that terrorist acts are always wrong while other violent acts are sometimes morally right? Consider the fact that, in spite of the allegedly axiomatic belief that terrorism is wrong, the most famous comment about terrorism is the cynical 3 The idea of moral clarity and its related agenda appear in William J. Bennett, Why We Fight (New York: Doubleday, 2002), and in Jean B. Elshtain, Just War Against Terror (New York: Basic Books, 2003). The phrase “unmitigated global
on non-innocents as terrorism, and explained why we should not expand the concept of terrorism to include unintended harms to civilians. chapter 5 “Who dun it” definitions of terrorism If I have succeeded so far, readers should now accept the definition I have defended. Before fully accepting it, however, readers should understand that the definition differs from the definitions given by many experts on terrorism and clashes with widespread beliefs about terrorism. In this chapter, I will show why
they achieve less militarily, the harms done are less likely to be offset by military benefits. Therefore, a utilitarian might adopt the rule “don’t attack civilians” as a default position or rule of thumb. This rule would provide a weak form of noncombatant immunity because it would be understood that, if a particular attack on civilians had sufficient military value, it would be permissible. The next option is the type of view that requires much more than normal military value to justify attacking
person who is responsible for the unjustified attack on your life. This second requirement of responsibility for an attack is central to our ordinary understandings of self-defense. It is not sufficient that we can 175 176 Defending noncombatant immunity protect our own life by attacking another person. The right of self-defense permits us to harm the attacker because the attacker is responsible for the threat against us. By initiating the attack, the assailant loses his immunity, and the victim
