After the heyday of totalitarian terrorism in the 1930s and 1940s,internal state terrorism continued to be practiced by militarydictatorships in many parts of the world, albeit in a less sustainedand pervasive way. But the type of terrorism that came to the fore inthe second half of the 20th century and in early 21st century is thatemployed by insurgent organizations. Many movements for nationalliberation from colonial rule resorted to it, either as the main methodof struggle or as a tactic complementing guerrilla warfare. So did someseparatist movements. Some organizations driven by extreme ideologies,in particular on the left, took to terrorism as the way oftrying to destroy what they considered an unjust, oppressive economic,social and political system. This type of terrorism is, by and large,indiscriminate in its choice of target: it attacks men and women ofwhatever political (or apolitical) views, social class, and walk oflife; young and old, adults and children. It shoots at people, or blowsthem up by planting bombs, in office buildings, markets, cafes,cinemas, places of religious worship, on buses or planes, or in othervulnerable public places. It also takes people hostage, by hijackingplanes and in other ways.
A more in-depth definition of terrorism would include characteristics such as, a crime of holy duty, a political tactic or strategy, an inexcusable abomination, or a justified reaction to oppression ("What is Terrorism?")....
Per Bauhn does not leave it at that. He attempts to show thatterrorism that targets non-combatants or common citizens can never bejustified by deploying a slightly amended version of AlanGewirth's ethical theory. Freedom and safety are fundamentalprerequisites of action and therefore must be accorded paramountweight. The need to protect them generates a range of rights; the rightpertinent here is “an absolute right not to be made the intendedvictims of a homicidal project” all innocent persons have(Gewirth 1981: 16). When the absolute status of this right ischallenged by invoking supreme emergency or moral disaster, Bauhnargues that there is a moral difference between what we are positivelyand directly causally responsible for, and what we are causallyresponsible for only indirectly, by failing to prevent other personsfrom intentionally bringing it about. We are morally responsible forthe former, but (except in certain special circumstances) not for thelatter. If we refuse to resort to terrorism in order not to targetinnocent persons, and thus fail to prevent some other persons fromperpetrating atrocities, it is only the perpetrators who will bemorally responsible for those atrocities. Therefore we must refuse(Bauhn 1989: chapter 5).
It might be objected that in calling for sacrificing such basichuman rights as the right to life and to bodily security ofindividual victims of terrorism for the sake of a more justdistribution of violations of the same rights within a groupin the course of transition to a stage where these rights will berespected throughout that group, Held offends against the principles ofseparateness of persons and respect for persons (Primoratz 1997:230–31). In response, Held argues that
Virginia Held operates with a broad notion of terrorism, but herjustification of terrorism is meant to apply to terrorism that targetscommon citizens. Her discussion of the subject focuses on the issue ofrights. When rights of a person or group are not respected, what maywe do in order to ensure that they are? On one view, known asconsequentialism of rights, if the only way to ensure respect of acertain right of A and B is to infringe the sameright of C, we shall be justified in doing so. Held does nothold that such trade-offs in rights with the aim of maximizing theirrespect in a society are appropriate. Yet rights sometimes come intoconflict, whether directly or indirectly (as in the aboveexample). When that happens, there is no way we can avoid comparingthe rights involved as more or less stringent and making certainchoices between them. That applies to the case of terrorismtoo. Terrorism obviously violates some human rights of itsvictims. But its advocates claim that in some circumstances a limiteduse of terrorism is the only way of bringing about a society wherehuman rights of all will be respected.
“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.
Still the potential for countless lives being lost in an aircraft accident from the actions of a terrorist or terrorist organization is still very real and innocent families across this nation and abroad remain the targets.
We are a group of college and high school teachers together with professional freelance academic writers bonded by the same mission - provide free education to students.
This essay will discuss the perception of a moral panic and will look at the case of the September 11th Terrorist attack against the United States of America, which triggered a colossal conflict of morality within modern day society....
We receive tons of emails and calls each day from people who require professional custom writing assistance on various projects at different academic levels. Though we could easily help them, we consider it unethical to sell our services to students. Please feel free to contact us with proofreading requests but do not waste your time talking us into writing an essay for you.
The evaluative meaning of “terrorism” has shiftedconsiderably more than once. So has its descriptive meaning, but to alesser degree. Whatever else the word may have meant, its ordinary useover more than two centuries has typically indicated two things:violence and intimidation (the causing of great fear or terror,terrorizing). The dominant approach to the conceptual question inphilosophical literature reflects this. Terrorism is usually understoodas a type of violence. This violence is not blind or sadistic, butrather aims at intimidation and at some further political, social, orreligious goal or, more broadly, at coercion.
When Arafat addressed the General Assembly, he made the argument that the actions taken by his government were not acts of terrorism, but these were acts of revolution and their purpose was to regain control of Palestine’s occupied original territ...
In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity....
Secondly, economic causes also contribute to intense terrorism in India. Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh are prime examples. The economic factors include rural unemployment, exploitation of landless labourers by those who own land and lack of land reforms. These economic perceptions and grievances of gross social injustice have led to the rise of ideological groups of terrorists such as the several Marxist/Maoist groups existing under different names.