Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive - Assignment Example

Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive? 1. Terrorism is a word that has various meaning depending on the context in which it is applied. However, in most common cases, it is used to refer to the techniques that an enemy uses to attack another person or foe. Therefore, there is a need to consider and determine the morally distinctive feature of this phenomenon1. In some cases, terrorism is justified. However, some other situations do not justify it at all costs. When it is not justified, it does not imply that the actions which are meant to combat it as a vice are morally acceptable. It is important to consider the situations in detail before making any conclusions2. To begin with, terrorism imparts fear in the people who are innocent. The violent for imminent and violent death befalls the victims of terrorism. The continual fear is not part of the monetary anxiety that awful. The victims are stressed every time they are experiencing fear. Sometimes, the terror groups have the objective of inducing terrorism in order to make a different group of people to fear the terrorists. For example, they may make the victims succumb to injuries so that the larger group is induced into extreme fear3. The effects of terrorism are therefore felt in two ways. First, the people who are directly affected by the terrorist activity and secondly, the larger group was targeted in the mission to feel fearful out of the sample mission. The negative impacts are felt when there is the absence of an authority. State terror does not automatically qualify to be a morally wrong act. Sometimes it may lead to the preservation of the social order that is already existing among the citizens or simply deteriorate it. 2. Noncombatants are sometimes involved in the war. From the postulates of the functionalist explanation of noncombatant accountability in war, the citizens are responsible and responsible for war and its effects. This is because of their indirect involvement in the war. They support an unjust war by supplying the weapons, food and medical care for the army. Therefore, they are confirmed to have participated directly in the war which is unjust. Direct involvement and participation are of great concern here under the functionalist account of the unjust war4. The reports concerning this involvement follow some sort of laws on war. For example, it logical to regard the people who manufacture munitions as direct participants of war5. Also, the contractors who are tasked with the maintenance of the weapons of the soldiers on the battleground are part of the participants in the war6. From the reporting of ICRC, direct participation in war should be ready to handle the following issues. One, that to which the citizens contribute to which is also called nexus, and secondly, a relation that identifies the contributions and the injury suffered. Direct participation dictates that there must be a reasonable link between the action of the civilians and the harm caused on the other parties. However, the civilians are not aimed at in legitimately since they are not directly involved in hostility. They only supply the essentials of war to the army. 3. Some attempt to defend the doctrine known as the moral equality of combatants (MEC) by arguing in favor of what Jeff McMahan calls the ‘boxing match model’ of warfare (in “The Moral Equality of Combatants”). Explain this argument and describe why McMahan believes it fails. The unjust combatants are not wrong in their deeds as long as they conform to the rules that guide their conduct in the course of war. From the common point of view concerning taking part in a war which is unjust, the just war is simply a great controversy. Therefore, the postulates that rule the behavior in times of war do not make any difference between the servicemen who engage in justified war and those whose fight is unjust. Then it can be seen that the underlying principles are viewed to be equally verifiable among the people who participate in this battle7. Combatants are not morally upright to go against the guidelines above regardless of the case of the war. The moral worth of the act of the combatants is proved to be asserted by ensuring that they do not act in a wrong way so long as they adhere to the principles that guide them in war. However, a combatant can only be declared to have acted in the wrong manner if he or she engages in a fight due to anger and hatred towards the foe8. Also, the pleasure to maim is regarded as a wrong deed. The boxing match model of war can be used to justify the claim of the morality of war. When the soldiers engage in the battlefield willingly, by taking sides as the others’ enemies, this does not qualify to be wrong morally. Neither is it an offense to do so. According to this model, a person ought to give consent to be hit by the opposing side. Therefore, the fighters ought to understand that they are accomplishing their role which is professionally recognized9. So long as a person accepted to engage in war, the death that arises out of this does not imply any wrongdoing by the enemies. A combatant who fails to harm the opponents in the course of the war is actually doing a wrong. 4. Describe the distinction Thomas Hurka makes (in “Proportionality and Morality of War”) between sufficient and contributory just causes. In doing so, explain how contributory just causes are relevant to the jus ad bellum proportionality constraint in war. Just war theory puts across various criteria that must be met so that a war is justified ethically. Therefore, there are two causes of war. Sufficient just causes are those causes that usually permit themselves to accomplish a condition that is presumed to be just. This pertains to a decision to wage war. They are enough on their own to influence the decision of on war. There are various that are used to illustrate this term. For example, an aim to resist the aggression imposed by a certain group or authority. In addition, when a person anticipates preventing the occurrence of a given wrong that might impact humanity, it is also called a sufficient cause of war. Conversely, the contributory just causes of war are those that have no basis for justifying the condition of war10. When they are the only causes given to justify a war, a person cannot be given the mandate to engage in such a war. However, these contributory causes emerge once the sufficient cause is experienced. The examples of these causes of war are an intention to make sure that the enemy is not armed so that the future incidence of war by this foe is avoided. Also the process of deterring a country’s aggression by displaying to that state that it is not beneficial. The contributory causes are relevant to this maxim of proportionality constraint of terrorism. The jus ad bellum11 constraints demand that there must be a just cause for war to be declared on a given group. For instance, the declaration of war on another country. The contributory causes become relevant because there is a need to prevent the occurrence of war in the future. In another example, the state may declare war on criminal groups that are planning to attack its citizens. 5. According to Judith Thomson, both the wrongdoers and the beneficiaries who are innocent out of the wrong doing are responsible to compensate the victims. Fullinwider criticizes this view by tring to show how that the innocent beneficiaries are not liable for this.. She uses the example of a woman so that she can elaborate that her case for preferential hiring is considered to be just. Therefore, this argument is based upon the fact that when a debt is accrued to a woman, this makes us be justified with the preferential hiring of such group of people. For instance, this does not depend on the fact that we are overriding on any rights for the male applicants or not. Historically, women have been owed a great debt of compensation. This is because they have been prone to many cases of damages and also they have been discriminated to a large extent. Therefore, they have the ethical rights to a share of compensation. This form of rectification is owed by the society. However, this is not the case with Robert Fullinwider. He uses his example to explain his criticism towards this viewpoint. The example assumes that a person has made away with a gun which is not common, whose purpose is hunting. Before the owner gets back his or her item, it gets damaged in a fire. It, however, coincides that a brother is having owns many of those riffles12. When the owner of the gun which was lost seeks for compensation, he or she will need the exact one. The best form of compensation that will satisfy the owner is the one which was stolen. Therefore, the owner might get paid the exact price for that riffle by simply offering one of the brother’s guns. This is not morally accepted though. The reason is that the gun belongs to another person and not the one who is compensating. The criticism presented in the earlier case is that it is good to establish who owes the other a certain form of compensation. In addition, is vital to look for the ethically accepted modes of compensation. From the view of Thomson, the community is doing a wrong to compensate women for using what does not belong to it. Therefore, it has not been explained what the claim of the unjust hiring of women entails. Therefore, the preferential hiring of women is not correct13. The innocent should pay less amount since the benefits that they obtain are substantial still. 6. Explain George Hull’s distinction between compensation and rectification (in “Affirmative Action and the Choice of Amends”). Compensation and rectification are both forms of redress that can be applied after injustices have been done on a person. Compensation can be explained by the following example. When x does a wrong against y, it may be assumed that y will be harmed14. This most often leads to a reduction of the welfare of this can be assessed by capturing the financial loss suffered by, however, sometimes x would encounter the loss due to the carelessness by y himself. But the underlying reason for this is attributed to the wrongdoing by x. x needs to take a step that will restore the welfare that y had initially15. Therefore, what x gives y is called compensation. On the other hand, rectification entails the following scenario. First, here we do not regard compensation as the sole mode of redress. When there is no visible caused by one part, it will be wrong to call for compensation. There may need to redress the victim in this case16. The choice to rectify is, however, open-minded in a way that the perpetrator has to decide on the best way of redress. This relies on the expressive and status restoring functions17. In general, affirmative action aims at redressing for the unjust discrimination. However, sometimes this might be seen as a wrong way of making amends. Bibliography Fabre, C. "Guns, Food, and Liability to Attack in War." Ethics 120, no. 1 (2009), 36-63. doi:10.1086/649218. Fullinwider, R. K. "Preferential Hiring and Compensation." Social Theory and Practice 3, no. 3 (1975), 307-320. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract1975332. Hull, G. "Affirmative Action and the Choice of Amends." Philosophia 43, no. 1 (2014), 113-134. doi:10.1007/s11406-014-9564-4. Hurka, T. "Proportionality in the Morality of War." Drawing Morals, 2011, 238-264. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199743094.003.0015. McMahan, J. "On the Moral Equality of Combatants." Journal of Political Philosophy 14, no. 4 (2006), 377-393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00265.x. Thomson, J. J. (Summer, 1973). Preferential hiring. Philosophy and public affairs, vol. 2, pp. 364-384. Scheffler, Samuel. "Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive?" Journal of Political Philosophy 14, no. 1 (2006), 1-17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00242.x. Read More