Ethical Issues on Terrorism and Warfare - Essay Example

Terrorism and Warfare Name: Course: Institution: Date: Terrorism and Warfare Introduction In the 21st century, warfare and terrorism have characterized the nature of conflict between state and non-state actors. Warfare occurs in the form of interstate conflicts or civil wars. Terrorism is considered as an approach to extreme violence in which the perpetrators engage in atrocious activities with the objective of advancing an ideology (Nathanson 2010). Concern for sustainability with regard to warfare and terrorism is driven by the increasing concern for the deteriorating state of the natural environment courtesy of irresponsible human activities. From an ethical perspective, it is the responsbility of those engaged in warfare and terrorism to ensure that their activities do not have adverse effects on the lives of the current and future generations. This essay will assess the effects of war and terrorism from the perspectives of sustainability and ethics. The relationship between warfare, terrorism and sustainability Sustainability is based on the need to engage in activities that safeguard the welfare of the planet to ensure the survival of man and other species that inhabit the earth. Through sustainability objectives, it is possible for different stakeholders to seek technical solutions for the management of natural resources for the exclusive use of humankind (Newton 2003). These approaches uphold environmental conservation as the main as an essential aspect in the protein of the social wellbeing for humankind and the preservation of cultural diversity (Newton 2003). Proponents of sustainability argue that there is need to develop strategies that will enhance the social welfare of humankind while facilitating ecological preservation to ensure the provision of essential goods and services for economic development (Newton 2003). Warfare and terrorism are considered as threats to sustainability because most of the infrastructure considered necessary in preparation for these hostilities include weapon, training grounds, camps, barracks and training grounds among others (Mannion 2003). The sudden and dramatic impact of war and terrorism can be perceived as direct or indirect. The direct impact is inclusive of the use of weapons of mass destruction such as bombs, which not only destroy settlements but also communication networks (Mannion 2003). During the hostilities, defoliation and ecosystem destruction, coupled by dumping of war machinery and the destruction of essential resources such as oil fields also occur. The indirect impact of warfare and terrorism with regard to sustainability include the distortion of population composition as young males join the conflicts while the aged and the children are forced to seek safety in refugee camps (Thiroux & Krasemann 2012). In countries where agriculture is a major economic activity, war fare and terrorism leads to abandonment and degradation of land and loss of life (Mannion 2003). The use of weapons for mass destruction is not only leads to loss of human life but also a threat to the existence of wildlife and destruction to the ecosystem because of the lethal nature of the weapons used (Mannion 2003). The most significant ethical issue concerning warfare and terrorism One of the most significant aspects of warfare and terrorism is in questioning the extent to which they facilitate the promotion of happiness for the greatest number of people. Understanding warfare and terrorism from the utilitarian perspective can be essential in understanding the necessity of these hostilities (Cahn 2011). According to the utilitarian perspective, an individual seeks to engage in activities that promote happiness for the greatest number of people (Thiroux & Krasemann 2012). This would make it easier to develop the argument that the utilitarian approach disagrees with all forms of war. Moral reasoning however is dependent on the circumstances that concern potential risks and rewards, which is debatable especially when an activity can ensure the death of thousands of people. Inasmuch as warfare is often undesirable, there are circumstances where it is considered a necessity (Thiroux & Krasemann 2012). For example, the American Civil war was considered as one of the deadliest wars for Americans. However, as most Americans wold agree, it was necessary for the abolition of slavery and guarantee happiness of future generations (Cahn 2011). In the contemporary society where those leading warfare and terrorism cannot be found in battlefields, it is important for the leadership to consider the potential number of human deaths compared to the potential rewards and the positive impact on the future each time terrorist activities of warfare are considered necessary. Inasmuch as war is considered appropriate in certain circumstances, it is important for the hostilities to only occur among those who volunteer to endanger in the conflict. When wars and terrorist activities involve those who do not believe in the cause of war or innocent civilians, it must be considered as evil and unnecessary act (Cahn 2011). Terrorism is perceived as a form of hostility whose objective is to ensure the destruction of the morale of a nation, a class by undercutting its solidarity. Terrorist accomplish this objective through indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians (Nathanson 2010). Indiscriminate killing is a crucial attribute tin the activities of terrorists. Inasmuch as war can be acceptable from a utilitarian viewpoint, terrorism is an evil that should never exist (Nathanson 2010). Terrorism does not generate and benefit and the happiness arising from such an activity is underserved. The flexibility of terrorism has made it a tool used by extremist ideologists in the expression of statements and initiation of conflicts (Cahn 2011). It is also probable for terrorist activities to be organized without an explainable motive. This explains why the sense of random attacks on innocent civilians by terrorist groups. This has become a major concern for government and authorities whose objective is to deep sustainable policies for the protection of innocent civilians (Cahn 2011). Terrorism just like an illegal warfare aimed at combating extremist activities presents a moral judgment about an illegal activity by a group of persons. The illegal nature of terrorist activities is often considered extreme in relation to the methodologies employed in expressing and promoting their ideologies (Cahn 2011). From a utilitarian perspective, there is a relationship between terrorism, irrationality and fanaticism. These connotations often enhance the security threat and the need for states to develop mechanism of promoting citizen solidarity and safety (Nathanson 2012). Warfare and terrorism from an ethical perceptive are two approaches of conflict perceived in different ways. For instance, warfare is often perceived as an approach to hostility aimed at the protection of the state from external adversaries. Terrorism is perceived as a threat to the happiness of the highest number of individuals in the society because it violates the rules of legitimate political violence while ignoring the distinction between civilians and combatants (Nathanson 2012). In addition, through unsanctioned activities such as abduction, suicide bombing, hijacking of airlines and killing of hostages, terrorist activities cannot be associated with just war (Cahn 2011). The relationship between terrorism, warfare and economic viability The main objective of business is to provide essential goods and resources for the satisfaction of primary and secondary needs. Warfare and terrorism promotes economic activities for those engaged in the manufacture and sale of war equipment such as machinery, armoury, clothing and technology (Best 2014). Despite the perceived success acquired by these business enterprises, wars are considered disadvantageous in relation to economic viability because they destroy infrastructure such as transport and communication channels, which are essential for economic development (Best 2014). In warfare, the main objective is to weaken an opponent and establish some dominance. This is only realizable through the destruction of property essential for economic development. Warfare and terrorism threaten economic stability because they play a role in the reduction of the potential and actual human resources (Best 2014). The death of masses through hostilities facilitates the reduction of the capacity of knowledge available in the affected countries in terms of human labour. This not only contributes to economic degradation of the affected country but also affects the rate of economic growth hence a reduction in the Gross Domestic product of the said country (Best 2014). Warfare and terrorism presents affected countries with economic challenges. This is because they provide opportunities for massive destruction and looting of property. This not only exacerbates economic conditions resulting from warfare but also makes it relatively hard for the affected countries to make decisions regarding the ability of the country to develop effective strategies on the war (Best 2014). Terrorism is considered as a threat to the economic development of different countries because of the indiscriminate and brutal nature of their attacks on innocent civilians and economic resources. Terrorist activities are considered extremist with regard to economic development because they are not limited or defined by domestic or international laws regarding warfare (Best 2014). The indiscriminate destruction of property and lives threatens economic viability in different countries because terrorism targets the most crucial and essential economic infrastructure as a way of inflicting fear and promoting its ideology (Best 2014). An ethical and sustainable response to warfare and terrorism The development of ethical and sustainable solutions to the challenges presented by terrorism and warfare can be solved through Kantian approach to ethics. According to Kant, it is erroneous to base decisions on the understanding that morality can be defined by the consequences of behaviour (Gibson 2014). This is based on the understanding that consequences may be sometimes outside the control of the actor. Furthermore, it is also erroneous to base morality on the desire to maximize happiness or utility. Instead, the decision to engage in warfare and terrorism should be based on the understanding that human beings possess an intrinsic value beyond the maximization of happiness and utility (Gibson 2014). The right intention in the view of Kant should be perceived as the ultimate determinant of the morality of an act. This means that the decision to engage in warfare or terrorist activities should be based on the desire by the concerned parties to act out of their sense of duty since they possess knowledge of that which is right (Gibson 2014). The promotion of ethics while engaging in warfare and the eradication of terrorist activities is only possible when the concerned parties assess their activities before acting. This will be defined by considering the extent to which the rule that justifies their actions can have a universal application. Kantian approach to ethics makes it the responsbility of every individual to assess the extent to which their actions are right or wrong with regard to the possibility of universalization (Gibson 2014). Sustainability requires a stable pursuit of social equity, ecological health and economic welfare. This means that human activities must be grounded on the ethical committee to not only enhance the wellbeing of the contemporary population but also the welfare and improved opportunities for future generations (Mannion 2003). From the Kantian categorical imperatives, the decision of whether to engage in warfare and terrorist activities will be influenced by the ability of the actors to evaluate their activities in relation to environmental sustainability (Gibson 2014). This will influence the type of weapons used and the nature of atrocities committed by those involved in the hostilities. Furthermore, it will also involve the determination of the causes of wars and terrorist activities in relation to the underlying benefits and losses. Conclusion Warfare and terrorism are considered as threats to sustainability because use of weapons of mass destruction such as bombs, which not only destroy settlements but also infrastructure. Inasmuch as war is considered appropriate in certain circumstances, it is important for the hostilities to occur among those who volunteer to engage in the conflict. Moral reasoning how depends on the circumstances that concern potential risks and rewards, which is debatable especially when terrorism and warfare activities can ensure the death of thousands of people. When wars and terrorist activities involve those who do not believe in the cause of war or innocent civilians, it must be considered as evil and unnecessary act. From an ethical perspective, sustainability requires a stable pursuit of social equity, ecological health and economic welfare. Economically, the death of masses through hostilities facilitates the reduction of the capacity of knowledge available in the affected countries in terms of human labour. This contributes to economic degradation and it affects the rate of economic growth hence a reduction in the Gross Domestic product. This means that human activities must be grounded on the ethical committee to not only enhance the wellbeing of the contemporary population but also the welfare and improved opportunities for future generations. References Best, A 2014, International History of the Twentieth Century and beyond. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Cahn, S 2011, Exploring Ethics: An introductory Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press. Gibson, K 2014, In Introduction to Ethics, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, pp. 78–80. Mannion, M 2003, The Environmental Impact of War and Terrorism. The University of Reading: Whiteknights Nathanson, S 2012, Terrorism, and the Ethics of War. Cambridge University: Cambridge University Press Newton, L 2003, Ethics and Sustainability: Sustainable Development and the Moral Life, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp. 1–8. Thiroux, P & Krasemann, K 2012, Ethics Theory and Practice, 11th edn, pp. 37–41. Read More

The use of weapons for mass destruction is not only leads to loss of human life but also a threat to the existence of wildlife and destruction to the ecosystem because of the lethal nature of the weapons used (Mannion 2003). The most significant ethical issue concerning warfare and terrorism One of the most significant aspects of warfare and terrorism is in questioning the extent to which they facilitate the promotion of happiness for the greatest number of people. Understanding warfare and terrorism from the utilitarian perspective can be essential in understanding the necessity of these hostilities (Cahn 2011).

According to the utilitarian perspective, an individual seeks to engage in activities that promote happiness for the greatest number of people (Thiroux & Krasemann 2012). This would make it easier to develop the argument that the utilitarian approach disagrees with all forms of war. Moral reasoning however is dependent on the circumstances that concern potential risks and rewards, which is debatable especially when an activity can ensure the death of thousands of people. Inasmuch as warfare is often undesirable, there are circumstances where it is considered a necessity (Thiroux & Krasemann 2012).

For example, the American Civil war was considered as one of the deadliest wars for Americans. However, as most Americans wold agree, it was necessary for the abolition of slavery and guarantee happiness of future generations (Cahn 2011). In the contemporary society where those leading warfare and terrorism cannot be found in battlefields, it is important for the leadership to consider the potential number of human deaths compared to the potential rewards and the positive impact on the future each time terrorist activities of warfare are considered necessary.

Inasmuch as war is considered appropriate in certain circumstances, it is important for the hostilities to only occur among those who volunteer to endanger in the conflict. When wars and terrorist activities involve those who do not believe in the cause of war or innocent civilians, it must be considered as evil and unnecessary act (Cahn 2011). Terrorism is perceived as a form of hostility whose objective is to ensure the destruction of the morale of a nation, a class by undercutting its solidarity.

Terrorist accomplish this objective through indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians (Nathanson 2010). Indiscriminate killing is a crucial attribute tin the activities of terrorists. Inasmuch as war can be acceptable from a utilitarian viewpoint, terrorism is an evil that should never exist (Nathanson 2010). Terrorism does not generate and benefit and the happiness arising from such an activity is underserved. The flexibility of terrorism has made it a tool used by extremist ideologists in the expression of statements and initiation of conflicts (Cahn 2011).

It is also probable for terrorist activities to be organized without an explainable motive. This explains why the sense of random attacks on innocent civilians by terrorist groups. This has become a major concern for government and authorities whose objective is to deep sustainable policies for the protection of innocent civilians (Cahn 2011). Terrorism just like an illegal warfare aimed at combating extremist activities presents a moral judgment about an illegal activity by a group of persons.

The illegal nature of terrorist activities is often considered extreme in relation to the methodologies employed in expressing and promoting their ideologies (Cahn 2011). From a utilitarian perspective, there is a relationship between terrorism, irrationality and fanaticism. These connotations often enhance the security threat and the need for states to develop mechanism of promoting citizen solidarity and safety (Nathanson 2012). Warfare and terrorism from an ethical perceptive are two approaches of conflict perceived in different ways.

For instance, warfare is often perceived as an approach to hostility aimed at the protection of the state from external adversaries.

Read More