Global Ethical Challenges - Assignment Example

Dialogue: Could a terrorist act ever be morally justified? She: This world is truly full of double standards1! He: why do you say so? She: Well, why are some acts of terrorism referred to as counter-terrorism or retaliation attacks, while others are simply referred to as terrorist acts? In my opinion, that is tantamount to applying double standards to the same practice. If it is an act of terror, then we need not sugar-coat it by calling it counter-terrorism He: As far as I can tell, there is a difference. She: Well, if you ask me, your argument does not hold any water. If killing innocent people is not morally justifiable in what some people now describe as terrorism, I do not see how the same can be morally right in counter-terrorism attacks, and/or retaliatory attacks. Unless of course there are different understandings of what morally justified acts are. He: But don’t you think that terrorist acts are morally wrong? Consider 9/11 for example; what justification can a person or group perpetrating such massive killing of innocent people have?2 She: I am not saying killing innocent people is right. In fact, I think it is outright wicked. However, I am well aware that conclusions about morality or lack thereof should come after we grasp the moral issues, and reason about them. I for example think that terrorism should not be judged as a bad thing without grasping the reasons why ‘terrorists’ do what they do.3 ; 4 He: Do not tell me that you think that terrorism is often a cry for attention by the perpetrators. The fact that terrorist acts are meant to be indiscriminate and instil fear is clear evidence that nothing can really justify the actions, even if they were indeed a cry for attention. She: You know you are actually wrong and right about several things. First, you are arguably right about the cry for attention. Sometimes, I believe what you label ‘acts of terror’ are the only way that some non-state actors can make their voices heard5. Second, you are wrong in assuming that terrorists’ acts are indiscriminate and meant to instil fear. I honestly think that in most cases, they target very specific people, and for purposes of not instilling fear, but passing on a message.6 He: Really?! Enlighten me. She: I don’t think you need enlightenment. You just need to be more judicious. Why do you think that Al-Qaeda will for example target American embassies abroad? Why specifically target where American interests are represented in large numbers? It must be because the so called terrorist know who they are targeting and therefore seeks to differentiate them from the rest of the population. And do you by any chance know what their grievances against the Americans are? I highly doubt you know. The media and the government do not see it necessary to enlighten you about such issues. He: You speak as if you’d die for them; you’ll be lucky to survive this lifetime without becoming a subject of their attack, and then, I would love to see you support them afterwards. She: If I ever become a subject of their attack, I’ll blame my government for it. And you know why? Because I strongly believe that as B.I. Wilkins says, “Terrorism is justified as a form of self-defence”.7; 8 He: You are unbelievable! You now want to tell me that terrorism is, and can be an act of self-defence? She: I am telling you that acts of terrorism are often done in self-defence especially when individuals or groups cannot access other legal or political remedies; and when the perpetrators of such acts perceive a community or a group as being collectively guilty of the violence directed at the people who consider the use of terror.9 He: You never seize to amaze me with your arguments. You should vie to be the official spokesperson of all terrorists. Think about it; you’d really represent them well. While you think about my proposition, tell me why the terrorist groups cannot just remain within their countries and engage, if they so wish in just war. I mean, if they so think they represent their people, why can’t they convince their state actors to wage just wars against those they perceive to be oppressing them? Could it be because they do not have any moral ground to wage such wars? She: To start with, if I could vie for the spokesperson’s job, I would; that would give you a chance to label me a terrorist and start hunting me down. To answer your second question or suggestion, I have to admit that I have no answer about why they cannot convince their state actors to wage what you refer to as just war. I must however tell you that if just war theory is the moral benchmark you will use to judge whether terrorism acts are morally justifiable, I could confidently tell you that they are. He: How so, Ms. Terrorism supporter? She: You can be sarcastic all you want. That makes you all the dafter. In my opinion, people just as nations, have a right to self-determination. When frustrated, deprived of their rights, or even denied their freedoms, people (e.g. terrorists) have the same just cause to wage war just as much as the states.10 That is one more moral justification for terrorism acts if you ask me. He: If I remember right, morality is not about why you do something, but about the right or wrong of your actions. If I follow your argument, you are suggesting that it morally justifiable to wage acts of terror against people just because you have been deprived of your rights or denied freedoms.11 She: No. I am suggesting that the people you now consider terrorists have a right to self-determination, just as you and I have. Further, since they are not represented by state actors like you and I, they can pursue the self-determination for the sake of representing those people who suffer through the denial of freedoms and/or through deprivation of rights. He: How legitimises their actions? Even state actors need to legitimise their just war decisions by showing how their actions will protect or benefit the citizenry from external aggressors. She: While the legitimate authority requirement in just war theory proposes state actors as the only entities that can legitimately wage just wars, there are several arguments in literature that propose that even non-state actors can legitimately wage just wars as long as they “represent the aspirations or the moral rights” of the people they claim to represent.12 He: I Might as well tell you at this point that you haven’t convinced me as to why acts of terrorism can be morally justified. I am yet to understand why an attack on innocent people can be morally right. She: The problem with you is that you are so close-minded that everything I have been talking to you seems to have been just a waste of time. Didn’t I just tell you that the so called ‘terrorists’ do not just attack the innocent? In some (and I dare say most) cases, the acts of terror are a last resort measure to address inequalities or injustices.13 In most cases, the perpetrators of acts of terror are denied access to nonviolent measures, and even when such measures are available, the State actors to whom the acts of terror are directed towards are not always willing to engage with the ‘potential perpetrators’. HE: I am not close-minded; I just recognise that terrorism is nothing less than murder, and regardless of what you say, I cannot see how murdering another human being can be morally justified.14 She: Well, it is not just murder; it is discriminate killing of people who are perceived as being supporters or perpetrators of the same ills that those who use terror acts try to fight. Of course, and like in every war, there are people who are ‘caught in the line of fire’. In other words, they were not the primary targets, but they get injured or killed because of their presence in the target area. I might as well tell you that suicide bombers do not just strap bombs onto their bodies and explode themselves just for the fun of it. It has been established that most of them do it as a coercion tactic.15 In such cases, suicide bombers use the strategy as a way of liberating their countries from the military occupation of other countries. It is my submission that such bombers prefer death than withstanding the external threat posed by those who occupy their countries. It would not be immoral to resist the external occupier especially if that occupier does not treat you with dignity and denies you your rights, now would it be? He: No. I don’t think so, but what happened to dialogue? Even suicide bombers still engage in immoral activities because they, apart from taking their own lives, they also kill others who would not have wanted to be enjoined in their tragic deaths. She: You are forgetting that we indicated earlier that we need to consider the moral standing of the reasons why terrorists do what they do, rather than judging their actions on face value. The question should therefore be: are suicide bombers or other terrorists for that matter morally justified in their acts of terror? My answer would be ‘Maybe’, because to tell you the truth, I do not defend terrorism, nor do I defend violence by state actors which should be ideally branded as terrorist acts, but which are not because of varying reasons. My argument however is that if war by state actors can be justified, even though it includes killing of innocent people, so can acts of terrorism. He: You are probably right. I have always thought that the perceptions of whether acts of terror or war are morally justifiable depend on which side of the divide you are at. Coming from a country whose citizens have been on the receiving end of acts of terror, am probably biased in my views. A person operating in the terror groups would probably divergent views from mine. She: I am glad we are on the same page about that. Perhaps if you engaged in self-reflection some more, you’d probably realise that you have been a hypocrite in your condemnation of terror, because as suggested by Alfred Louch, most of us would act just as the terrorist do if put in similar circumstances and situations.16 References Coady, C.A.J. (1985). The morality of terrorism. Philosophy, 78. Kapitan, T. (2007). Can terrorism be justified? Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.niu.edu/phil/~kapitan/pdf/CanTerrorismbeJustified.pdf Louch, A.R. (1989). Terrorism is immoral, In D.C. Rapoport & J Alexander, The morality of terrorism: religious and secular justifications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 541-547. Martin, B. (2004). Terrorism: ethics, effectiveness and enemies. Social Alternatives, 23(2), 36-37. Nathanson, S. (2010). Terrorism and the ethics of war. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Pape, R.A. (2005). Dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. London: Random House Publishing Group. Smilansky, S. (2004). Terrorism, justification, and illusion. Ethics, 114(July), 790-805. Valls, A. (2000). Can terrorism be justified? In Ethics in International Affairs, Rowman & Littlefield. Pp. 563-573. Wilkins, B. T. (1992). Terrorism and collective responsibility. New York: Taylor & Francis. Zeelenberg, S. (2011). This house believes terrorism can be justified. International debate education association. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/peace-security-human-rights/house-believes-terrorism-can-be-justified. Read More

He: You never seize to amaze me with your arguments. You should vie to be the official spokesperson of all terrorists. Think about it; you’d really represent them well. While you think about my proposition, tell me why the terrorist groups cannot just remain within their countries and engage, if they so wish in just war. I mean, if they so think they represent their people, why can’t they convince their state actors to wage just wars against those they perceive to be oppressing them? Could it be because they do not have any moral ground to wage such wars?

She: To start with, if I could vie for the spokesperson’s job, I would; that would give you a chance to label me a terrorist and start hunting me down. To answer your second question or suggestion, I have to admit that I have no answer about why they cannot convince their state actors to wage what you refer to as just war. I must however tell you that if just war theory is the moral benchmark you will use to judge whether terrorism acts are morally justifiable, I could confidently tell you that they are.

He: How so, Ms. Terrorism supporter? She: You can be sarcastic all you want. That makes you all the dafter. In my opinion, people just as nations, have a right to self-determination. When frustrated, deprived of their rights, or even denied their freedoms, people (e.g. terrorists) have the same just cause to wage war just as much as the states.10 That is one more moral justification for terrorism acts if you ask me. He: If I remember right, morality is not about why you do something, but about the right or wrong of your actions.

If I follow your argument, you are suggesting that it morally justifiable to wage acts of terror against people just because you have been deprived of your rights or denied freedoms.11 She: No. I am suggesting that the people you now consider terrorists have a right to self-determination, just as you and I have. Further, since they are not represented by state actors like you and I, they can pursue the self-determination for the sake of representing those people who suffer through the denial of freedoms and/or through deprivation of rights.

He: How legitimises their actions? Even state actors need to legitimise their just war decisions by showing how their actions will protect or benefit the citizenry from external aggressors. She: While the legitimate authority requirement in just war theory proposes state actors as the only entities that can legitimately wage just wars, there are several arguments in literature that propose that even non-state actors can legitimately wage just wars as long as they “represent the aspirations or the moral rights” of the people they claim to represent.

12 He: I Might as well tell you at this point that you haven’t convinced me as to why acts of terrorism can be morally justified. I am yet to understand why an attack on innocent people can be morally right. She: The problem with you is that you are so close-minded that everything I have been talking to you seems to have been just a waste of time. Didn’t I just tell you that the so called ‘terrorists’ do not just attack the innocent? In some (and I dare say most) cases, the acts of terror are a last resort measure to address inequalities or injustices.

13 In most cases, the perpetrators of acts of terror are denied access to nonviolent measures, and even when such measures are available, the State actors to whom the acts of terror are directed towards are not always willing to engage with the ‘potential perpetrators’. HE: I am not close-minded; I just recognise that terrorism is nothing less than murder, and regardless of what you say, I cannot see how murdering another human being can be morally justified.14 She: Well, it is not just murder; it is discriminate killing of people who are perceived as being supporters or perpetrators of the same ills that those who use terror acts try to fight.

Of course, and like in every war, there are people who are ‘caught in the line of fire’.

Read More