moralityForeword:
It seems ever since the attacks of September 11th the topic of terrorism has been more widely discussed and acknowledged. Honestly, up until this event took place terrorism was not a topic I had thought about critically. Even after the event, I remained unsure whether terrorism could ever be justifiable or if all forms of terrorism were morally wrong. Specifically, the single factor that caused me to stay undecided for such a great length of time was the ambiguity of the concept of terrorism. It seemed as if terrorism was just the label given to any violent event that was not viewed as righteous. For instance, under this impression of terrorism any group of individuals could condemn an act as terrorism simply because they didn’t agree with the use of violence in a specific manner and for a specific purpose. The way terrorism was presented to me seemed ultimately too vague, and it could be applied to nearly anything.
Position on the Morality of Terrorism
My Position:
Simple terrorism, terrorism not intended to cause death or injury to human life, is only morally permissible under circumstances when it is induced by an injustice. In contrast, I have come to the position that complex terrorism, terrorism intended to cause death or injury to human life, is never morally permissible. Therefore not all forms of terrorism are immoral, which is the position that seems to be held by many. In essence much of the morality on the subject of terrorism has to do with the intent, not the action itself, which seems to be a common misconception.
Concepts Used:
Terrorism - An act must intentionally use or threaten to use force or violence to bring about a change to a society or organization that is politically oriented. Secondly, the act must intentionally cause uneasiness or terror to the member’s of the targeted society or organization, which again is motivated by politically oriented goals. Finally the target must be a non-military, also known as a non-combatant target. If an act does not meet all of these conditions it is not terrorism, but rather something else.
Non-Combatant - A non-combatant is defined as a person that is not direct in support of a military body.
Simple Terrorism - Terrorism that is intended to result in no loss of life or injury to human life, whether it is a Non-combatant or otherwise.
Complex Terrorism - Terrorism that is intended to result in the loss of human life, whether it is Non-combatant or otherwise.
Support:
First let’s discuss simple terrorism and discover whether it is ever morally permissible. Simple terrorism is defined as terrorism that is intended to result in no loss of life or injury to human life, whether it is a Non-combatant or otherwise. First it is noted that autonomy is violated, because the people being put at uneasy or in a state of terror definitely do not wish to be in such a state. Secondly, simple terrorism possibly violates nonmaleficence by psychologically harming the targeted population, but this violation is not guaranteed. So far simple terrorism is already looking somewhat grim in terms of being morally permissible. Moving along, there is beneficence which turns out to be both a justification and a violation of simple terrorism. The people performing the simple terrorism do so to seek a gain from their actions, but on the other hand the people being terrorized are not gaining anything and might even be damaged in some nonphysical manner. Moving along, justice really has no universal application to simple terrorism, although in certain instances simple terrorism is induced by injustices, which would make the moral principle of justice another justification of simple terrorism in certain cases. If no injustice is present and yet a group of individuals or a single individual continue or start to commit simple terrorism then they do so without the support of the moral principle of justice. After all this analysis I came to two conclusions. If simple terrorism is induced by an injustice then it is morally permissible, because the moral principles of justice and beneficence outweigh the violations. They outweigh the violations not by number, but by the significance each holds to the morality of the situation. On the other hand, if simple terrorism is performed without any injustice inducing it, then the moral violations outweigh the justifications. The justification of justice holds quite a major role, and without it beneficence alone is not enough to conclude simple terrorism as morally permissible. Therefore this case of simple terrorism is not morally permissible.
Continuing on, the other type of terrorism that will be analyzed is complex terrorism. Complex terrorism is defined as terrorism that is intended to result in the loss of human life, whether it is a Non-combatant or otherwise. Once again an analysis of complex terrorism using the four basic moral principles will yield a relatively good idea whether it is ever morally permissible. Let’s begin with the moral principle of autonomy. Autonomy is a violated by complex terrorism, just like it is violated by simple terrorism. In addition to the violation of autonomy, nonmaleficence is definitely violated. Since by definition complex terrorism involves the intention to harm or kill someone, nonmaleficence is not just a possible violation like it was with simple terrorism. Moving on, the moral principle of beneficence is similarly applied in the manner simple terrorism was. It can be both a justification and a violation. Some people may benefit while others will not benefit at all and possibly damaged, and the damage caused may be physical or nonphysical in nature. Finally the moral principle of justice can also be a justification in some instances when complex terrorism is induced by injustice, but justice is also violated unless you hold that the people being harmed did in fact deserved what they got. In order to hold such a position it would have to be true that no one is innocent and that death or injury is an acceptable form of reconciliation for their offenses. Personally I agree that no one is innocent, but I do not agree that death or injury is a justifiable reconciliation even if they are not completely innocent. Therefore I have come to one ultimate conclusion in the case of complex terrorism. Complex terrorism is not justifiable under any circumstances, even if it is induced by injustice. The moral violations are quite frankly too overwhelming to the few justifications. Since complex terrorism is not justifiable, it is thereby not morally permissible under any circumstance.
In conclusion, I have come to the position that simple terrorism, terrorism not intended to cause death or injury to human life, is only morally permissible under circumstances when it is induced by an injustice. In contrast, I have come to the position that complex terrorism, terrorism intended to cause death or injury to human life, is never morally permissible. Therefore not all forms of terrorism are immoral, which is the position that seems to be held by many. In essence much of the morality on the subject of terrorism has to do with the intent, not the action itself, which seems to be a common misconception.
