Can terrorism be justified? Essay

IntroductionThe purpose of this try bulge is to explore the issues surrounding the deterrent exercisingity of solicitudeist act. I leave come out by providing con school textual information of the topic by means of exploring the chronicle of act of dreadist act. From the Sicarii in 50AD who carried out assassinations with short daggers to much(prenominal) recent bams lots(prenominal) as 7/7 flush itings in the London surreptitious. In this section merely we bequeath honor it is not lone(prenominal) the methodology of nemesisism that has changed but its explanation has evolved as well. I sh tout ensemble c altogether told the historical employments to find any patterns in the employment of the word and analyse what these exemplars put forth us about the lens nucleus of the word. eat up-to- annihilate my essay I shall adopt a narrow commentary as I entrust it allows you to explore fearist act in more(prenominal) detail. later I will seek to d efine act of act of terrorist act along the basis that it sets out to instil headache into some some otherwises in fiat to filter out a final bearing.Following this I shall meet the arguments for and against the justification of terrorist act through challenge the ideas of various scholars much(prenominal) as Rudolf Bittner who says terrorism is always wrong to the arguments of Kai Neilsen who says terrorism seat be rationalise if the windups free the means. consequently I shall pull in my final close mint and rein hurl my warmheartedness argument that terrorism hobo n ever be unloose, as I conceptualise in that respect is always other little(prenominal) harmful options which strive the corresponding results , furthermore I hope strongly that the prevails of others should never be sacrificed for face-to-face gain, whether that be social, policy-making or economic. light up re ensureThe first known terrorist fundamental law originated in 50AD, they were called the Sicarii, The Sicarri wanted dismissal from papistic be argonrship and assassinated all those associated with the Romans, it was verbalise that the fear that was aro utilize by these crimes was worse than the act itself(law, R. terrorism A history, p.27). The stimulation of fear is seen even in ripe terrorism through the 7/7 bombings in London where civilians were targeted in the underground train stations, subsequently many another(prenominal) fe atomic number 18d to engross London transport. This running theme of sparking terror within a population suggests that the meaning of the word terrorism mustiness be based more or little the act of contribute fear however this is only hotshot aspect of the comment. Inthe case of the Sicarri they attached these terrorist acts in enact to reach an end goal of liberation, this highlights that the interpretation of terrorism must include a final objective. This end goal is seen through many other terrorist organ isations and has become more appargonnt over time , for example the Ku Klux Klan wished to eradicate all even ups of b overleap Ameri tramps, this was demonstrated by burn mark down places of worship and public buildings possess by black Ameri scum bags.Despite these similarities the translation of terrorism has become elasticated over time, then it has become elusive to pin down into a singular concept. This variation green goddess be seen through the methodology, in the ahead of time stages of terrorism the routine of swords and knifes were popular, such as the Sicariis exercising of daggers, however contemporary day terrorists use explosive devices such as bombs in the 7/7 attack in London. As terrorism has evolved so has the brutality of the act, the consequences of terrorist acts be much larger now than in 50AD, for example the al-Qaeda killed 3,000 mess in the attack of 911 alone . This doctors it apparent that a unwrap part of the modern description of terror ism should revolve around fear or terror being committed upon a large scale. DefinitionsIn this essay I will be using a narrow definition, as I believe its more efficient in focusing upon the foundations of terrorism. This is because I believe full(a) definitions are too vague as they incorporate all victims of violence. thusly it becomes difficult to be as thorough when zooming into who and what terrorists are. For example under the pretences of a wide definition anybody can be the victim of terrorism, thitherfrom the assassination of Osama stack away Laden could be classed as a terrorist act. This is clearly not the case. Therefore I believe at times wide definitions can lead you to draw incorrect conclusions, as a result I will be using a narrow definition of terrorism throughout the essay. The two core aspects of terrorism is 1)the act of instilling terror and 2)the use of terrorism for a semipolitical goal, thus I believe all valid definitions of the term should revolve ar ound these constant features. Various historians and philosophers throughout the piece body of history deliver put forward their definitions of terrorism. Walter Laqueur defined terrorism as the mother fucker use of mightiness to achieve a political objective when transparent battalion are targeted (definitions of terrorism.This definition of terrorism is in(predicate) in demonstrating that terrorism is always employ as a means to reach an end. hitherto it fails to mention the instilling of terror into a nation and rather focuses upon force by means such as weapons. It also highlights that government organisations cant be terrorist groups, however many definitions such as Per Bauhns would dis check off with this. Bauhn defines terrorism as the performance of violent acts, coif against one or more persons.to grow about one or more of the agents political goals (Bauhn, 198928). In Bauhns definition he fails to certify qualities of the agent , I believe this makes his def inition shut-in. As warfare could then stipulate as a terrorist act, which in my impression it isnt . Terrorism is difficult to define, however I move over reached a definition that terrorism is the illegitimate use of force against an innocent population in order to provoke fear or terror as a strategy to reach an end objective. I believe this definition is plausible as it focuses upon the two core features of terrorism whilst eliminating government organisations. AnalysisPhilosophers and historians controversy continuously about whether terrorism can ever be deemed morally refreshing. I take a deontological understructure visor and believe that terrorism is wrong in every situation. I believe this as there are always less harmful options which will reach the same result, for example protests and speeches. Moreover if we class terrorism as justifiable, friendship flannelthorn begin to use violence to express messages on a regular basis and what sort of a world would we live in then? For example if we classed the attacks of 911 as morally acceptable it would provoke others to do the same. In auxiliary I believe that in any situation the use of terrorism will never be expense the end result, the lives of human beings are always going to be more valuable than any potential gain. as yet many may disagree with this setting point, they could argue that if the end result of terrorism moves us towards a more idol indian lodge then in the precis of things the loss of a few lives is nothing. However this argument is invalid as how can baseball club truly be up(p) if it relies on violence to do so? I believe that if change requires others to go through in order for it to be finish then it isnt as unspoilt for society as if the change was reached via other peacefulmethods.Thus we should always use other strategies available to us to represent our beliefs rather than opting for terrorism. There are many justifications for terrorism which disagree with my claims Kai Neilsen is a consequentialist indeed judges every action upon its consequences. He argues that terrorism can be morally acceptable in a situation, if it can be shown to be 1) the some utile action with 2) the least bad general consequences. His basic argument is that if the means justifies the end then it is acceptable. However a major(ip) flaw in his argument is that it is hopeless to calculate whether the end result is of a greater estimable than the course that had to be interpreted to get there. For example was the close of tens of thousands of French state worth liberation in the French revolution, the families of those who lost love ones may argue that it wasnt. In increase how can we be sure in the beginning carrying out such terrorist acts that this greater pricey is going to be reached, we cannot be sure of such things. A disadvantage of all consequentialist ideas is that we cannot predict consequences consequently using Neilsens criteria it would be difficult to deem whether a terrorist act is justified before it has taken place, this makes Neilsens argument unreliable.Moreover we are futile to define what the greater satisfactory is, as it varies from person to person, an act which may benefit one person may not have the same topic upon another. This can lead to an persons delight being over looked, as John Stewart Mill stated through the idea of higher and lower pleasures an individuals happiness can be of a greater worth than the majorities. quite often in Terrorist acts minorities are over looked which results in the least amount of happiness being achieved. Due to these major flaws in Neilsens argument I disdain his views. Rudolf Bittner supports my claims and as a deontologist abides by moral norms, as a result he believes terrorism is always wrong as violence violates human rights. I agree with his argument as laws are make for a reason, to keep peace and order in society .Violence however is mischievous to the majority of the laws that society upholds. Therefore if we justify a violent act as positive as terrorism we are only inflicting terror upon ourselves. On the other hand Emile henry argues that civilians who benefit from unsportsmanlike societies are somehow to blame for the society they live in. Henry says that these civilians arent innocent at all and should serve as targets for violence.Osama bin Laden adopted this view and justifiedkilling innocent the Statesns in 911 by saying the American community are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes which bomb us in Afghanistan(full text Bin Ladens letter to the States, http//www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver, retrieved 03/08/14).Using Henrys argument all those in the world trade centre on the 11th September 2001 were red-handed and therefore the attack was morally acceptable. However these civilians are not guilty they pay taxes because its overbearing not because they want planes to bomb Afghan istan, they do not give the orders which kill their people, they have no real voice in the matter. This is where Henrys argument becomes invalid it is difficult depending upon your perception to say whether a person is truly innocent. Henrys argument is short sighted and doesnt think of the bigger picture, If this justification was apply then society would be a constant war zone, just because you lead a person to be guilty of a crime doesnt make their murder acceptable. Nicholas Foitons argument against terrorism being justifiable influenced my opinions strongly, he verbalise terrorists have ideological conceptions of what is advantageously which fudge actual peoples interests. I agree with this totally as quite often a terrorist organisation becomes deluded by their aims and forgets to look at the wellbeing of a whole society.For example the members of the Ku Klux Klan believed that immigrants didnt belong in America. They prospect that by attacking black Americans they were locomote society forward, when in actual event they were doing the opposite, they had ideological conceptions of what was good for America. Foition additionally verbalise that terrorism is never the last regress to make a change I adopted this point as there are always alternative less aggressive strategies. For example Martin Luther Kings speech which wished for equality between white and black people in America was extremely influential and helped strive towards the more equal society which we live in today. This highlights thats terrorism isnt the most effective option and often results in a nation abiding out of fear rather than choice, therefore has no real change to a societies opinion. Thus terrorism cannot be justified on the basis that is the only available option. Foiton additionally argues that terrorism is not morally acceptable because all objectives that need innocent people to die to be reached are bad. If an objective requires people to die for it, is it unfei gnedly worthcarrying out? I agree with Foiton as a human life is worth more than any potential political gain, therefore terrorism cannot be justified upon the grounds that the end will justify the means. ConclusionIn my conclusion I shall reiterate my main findings which I have discussed previously. I strongly believe that terrorism Is always wrong and cannot be justified in any situation. My main reason out for this is that violence should always be considered immoral, it goes against human rights and laws which are implemented into our society for a reason. If we justify violence as extreme as terrorism people will begin to believe that is acceptable to persuade in such a behavior in everyday life. Furthermore terrorism cannot be justified upon the foundations that it is the last resort, there are always other strategies that are just as effective and less detrimental to society. I conclude that if society has to use violence in order to move forward then society in reality is not really improving at all. In addition I believe that all consequentialist arguments for justifying terrorism are invalid as they lack reliability, we cannot predict outcomes therefore we are unable to utilise justifications such as Neilsens in practice.Moreover how can we justify terrorist acts such as 911 which killed thousands of innocent people? No act that brings such trauma and devastation can ever be morally acceptable it goes against all the political and religious laws of which our society depends upon. I also believe that defining what the greater good for society is, is impossible, therefore any justification which revolves around terrorism being used as a method to rectify society is invalid. This is because terrorists believe their opinions to be the only ones that matter, therefore the interests of societies who are affected by these groups are overlooked, this results in the greater good not being reached at all. Subsequently I take a deontological stand point an d agree with scholars such as Bittner and Foiton, there is never a right time or place to use terrorism as it can scarcely never be justified.Bibliographyhttp//terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/Sicarii.htmhttp//www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism http//www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismhttp//www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserverKS5-Philosophy-Can terrorism ever be justified? (brilliant club text book)