The Morality of Terrorism

In this paper (a sequel to ‘What Is Terrorism?’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 7 [ 1990]) I discuss both consequentialist and deontological justifications of terrorism. In the consequentialist context, I look in particular into Leon Trotsky’s classic defence of the ‘red terror’, based on the argument of continuity of war, revolution, and terrorism, and the claim that the distinction between the guilty and the innocent, combatants and noncombatants, is not relevant to modern warfare. On the deontological side, I discuss Virginia Held’s recent attempt at justifying terrorism in terms of basic human rights and distributive justice. The conclusion reached is that terrorism remains almost absolutely morally impermissible.     

Some Thoughts on Terrorism, Moral Complaint, and the Self-Reflexive and Relational Nature of Morality

The contemporary discussion of terrorism has been dominated by deontological and consequentialist arguments. Building upon my previous work on a paradox concerning moral complaint, I try to broaden the perspectives through which we view the issues. The direction that seems to me as most promising is a self-reflexive, conditional, and, to some extent, relational emphasis. What one is permitted to do to others would depend not so much on some absolute code constraning actions or on the estimate of what would optimize overall the resulting well-being but on the precedents that the past actions of those others provided, on the relationships among the participants, on tacit or explicit offers and possible agreements among them, and on the reciprocity (or lack thereof) that ensues.

Cultural Issues in Terrorism and in Response to Terrorism

Summary

Among the multiple causes of terrorism is a clash of cultures. Trauma and the destruction of culture may create fertile ground for violent cultures and future terrorists. Cultural differences are important elements in the prevention, assessment, and treatment of post-terrorism psychological sequelae. Cultural and spiritual practices have been used or adapted to reduce anxiety, enhance recovery, and provide supplemental interventions. Learning within a community and engaging community and religious leaders, community members, and the individual patient in order to be guided by the specific needs of a group or an individual is essential to effective interventions following terrorism.     

Terrorism

Summary

This article examines the effect of terrorism on communities. Its specific point of view is that of resiliency rather than psychopathology. To this end, both a review of the literature on the impact of terrorism on communities in general and the close to home experience of communities in the north of Israel comprise this study. The conclusions drawn lead to practical recommendations for preparing communities both on the national level and at the local authority level to deal with the long-term psychological results of terror.     

论民族道德与政治道德

民族道德与社会政治道德具有不可分割的关系。一般说来,民族道德易受制于政治道德,而民族道德又会反作用于政治道德,同时,民族道德与政治道德作为一种有联系的精神实体,又会在相互影响、相互作用的过程中协调发展。     

Terrorism and Innocence

This paper begins with a discussion of different definitions of “terrorism” and endorses one version of a tactical definition, so-called because it treats terrorism as involving the use of a quite specific tactic in the pursuit of political ends, namely, violent attacks upon the innocent. This contrasts with a political status definition in which “terrorism” is defined as any form of sub-state political violence against the state. Some consequences of the tactical definition are explored, notably the fact that (unlike the political status definition) it allows for the possibility of state terrorism against individuals, sub-state groups and other states. But a major problem for the tactical definition is the account to be given of “the innocent.” In line with justwar thinking, the idea of “the innocent” is unpacked in terms of the concept of non-combatants and this in turn is treated as the category of those who are not prosecuting the harm that allows for a legitimate violent response. Problems with this approach are explored, with particular reference to criticisms made by Gregory Kavka. The recent drive to expand the class of those who may be legitimately attacked is subjected to scrutiny. Particular attention is paid to the role of “collective responsibility” and “deserving your government” in these arguments. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

论民族道德与宗教道德

民族和宗教虽然没有必然联系,但二者之间却又联系得非常密切。这看起来很矛盾,却是事实。脱离开民族实体去看待宗教是不对的;完全从民族的角度去看待宗教亦是不对的。就民族道德与宗教道德的相互关系而言,民族道德与宗教道德不仅相互联系,也相互作用;就民族道德与宗教道德各自的特点而言,民族道德重在自律,宗教道德重在他律。     

论民族道德与国家道德

在民族国家特别是多民族国家中,如何看待并处理好民族道德与国家道德的关系,是一个事关民族利益和国家利益的大问题。从民族道德与国家道德的关系看,民族道德统一于国家道德,民族利己主义是为国家道德所不容的,民族道德与国家道德的最高原则是无产阶级国际主义。必须用前瞻性的战略眼光来看待并认识这一问题,因为它事关民族与国家的长远利益,对构建和谐民族、和谐国家、和谐社会均具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。     

Terrorism and religious fundamentalism

At the beginning of the second decade of the third millennium, terror acts in Indonesia significantly shifted domestic national issues. Given that religion-based terrorism can be traced back to religious fundamentalism, this paper will set out a theological reflection from a biblical-Christian perspective on the essence of religion. In enhancing religious life for peacebuilding, this paper highlights the importance of preventing religious fundamentalism. This paper highlights three suggestions in relation to efforts for peacebuilding in Indonesia. First is the importance for society to enhance religious life more critically. Second is the urgent need to develop a religious attitude that encourages reinterpreting religious texts in the frame of peacebuilding. And third is the urgent need to enhance social justice and welfare that might prevent the spread of religious fundamentalism.     

Recognizing Terrorism

It has been claimed that most of the world’s preventable suffering and death are caused not by terrorism but by poverty. That claim, if true, could be hard to substantiate. For most terrorism is not publicly recognized as such, and it is far commoner than paradigms of the usual suspects suggest. Everyday lives under oppressive regimes, in racist environments, and of women, children, and elders everywhere who suffer violence in their homes offer instances of terrorisms that seldom capture public attention. Or so this essay argues, through exploring two models of terrorism and the points of view highlighted by each.     

Primoratz on Terrorism

ABSTRACT In ‘What is Terrorism?’ Igor Primoratz defines terrorism as “the deliberate use of violence, or the threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating them, or other people, into a course of action they would not otherwise take”. In this article I argue that Primoratz is wrong (a) to posit a necessary connection between terrorism and terror or intimidation, (b) to argue that terrorism is directed solely against people, and not, for example, property, and (c) to argue that the targets of terrorism proper are ‘the innocent’.     

Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.