Can terrorism ever be morally justified - Research Paper Example

Teacher’s This paper discusses whether the act of terrorism is justified or not. The topic is important philosophically because as we know, terrorism remains one of the most important challenges of the 21st century as it threatens the stability of international community. Not only does it endanger the governments and weaken economies, but also destabilize societies. It indeed has become more of an international enigma now and while social sciences study the causes, main varieties, history traces, and consequences of terrorism and also try to explain how terrorism has evolved over the years, philosophy focuses on two fundamental queries: What is terrorism? And can terrorism ever be morally justified? (Primoratz, 2011) Let us first address the first part. What is terrorism? Despite being notoriously difficult to define, one must identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence. It can be on part of a state or a group or any individual, against another state, group, individual or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the former’s demands on the latter party. The demands could be socio-economic or political. According to Igor Primoratz, terrorism can be defined as: ‘The deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would not take’ (Primoratz, 2011). These definitions however, form more of a general perspective to this whole idea, are simply unsatisfactory. They don’t delve into the root cause and what the ultimate objectives are behind these motives, but rather focus on what is done. The issue in its entirety is far more subtle. Virtually, in every historical era and society, there have been extremists who have used terror as their tactics to advance their cause. Of thousands of such groups that exist or have existed, the validity of their cause is often questioned. However, one element has remained consistent throughout the time, and that is their belief of being denied all the resources and opportunity to advance their cause through conventional means and that terrorism is the only way to voice their concerns and give them relief (Vague, 2007). Some studies suggest that poverty and one’s perception of unfairness and moral debauchery of Western capitalism play an integral part in forming these terrorists. Not only because they have had no other means to make their opinions heard, but also to show their hopelessness and frustration towards their oppressors. One such example can be found in most of the Arab states that are run by atrocities without the slightest hint of free media; media which can give room to voice people’s concerns such as Russian occupation of Chechnya or American policies in Israel. Louis P. Pojman, Professor of Philosophy at the United States Military Academy at West Point, writes of the causes of terrorism: “Although cultural attitudes, such as religious dogma, may be significant cause of terrorism, despair or a sense of hopelessness rooted in oppression, ignorance, poverty, and perceived injustice may be the contributing causes, the soil in which fundamentalism can grow and flourish.” I can only but agree with Professor’s statement. When two such forces, one of peoples’ bitterness and envy, together with government’s repression, collide, the result can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One must pay attention to the societies from which Al-Qaeda’s operatives, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Taliban come from and look to find their source of desperation. Be it by government repression or international indifference. If we do not give ears to the needs of poor then we must accept terror as a possible outcome. Now the question arises if the act of terrorism really is justifiable? There are many aspects to this. If we look at it with a humanitarian’s eye, then it is completely atrocious and is totally unacceptable no matter what the cause is. No society or religion allows killing of people and taking innocent lives including women and children. From the atomic attack on Hiroshima to the attacks on Twin Towers in 2001 to the London bomb blasts to the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, tens of thousands of lives have been wasted. Lives of those people who had nothing to do with any of the past grievances and hurts of these terrorists. Are all these acts justified? Have they achieved anything by doing this except creating fear and hate among people? All these questions point to one conclusion that no, these acts are not at all justified and should be condemned. But then there is another approach to this argument. A more philosophical one rather which compels us to rethink from a different perspective. It is generally agreed that it is justifiable to do violence to another person in self-defense. Terrorism for terrorism as one might say. A very simple example of this fact can be taken from the drone attacks by the US in the Afghan-Pakistan border and tribal areas killing several innocent people along with the targeted militants. Although these attacks may be considered as successful in killing Al-Qaeda militants but there is far too much of collateral damage involved. A young boy who has no relation to the ongoing war on terror in the region loses his parents and siblings just because he was present at the wrong place at the wrong time greatly influences the way he thinks, and may also contribute heavily in him becoming one of the militants and waging war on terrorism for terrorism. Can this act by the young boy ever be justified? (Wilkins, 1992) This is indeed a delicate subject involving different mind sets, backgrounds, groups of people, and societies who totally differ in their views. An act of terror may be justified for one group of people and not for another. This can be clearly seen from the split of world opinion on the issue of Israel-Palestine crisis. The American government which is heavily pressured by the Zionist lobby sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists, whereas the Muslim world is totally of a different opinion viewing them as martyrs and sacrificing themselves for Allah and their country in response to the mistreatment and sufferings on them by the Israeli soldiers. In such a situation, it is almost impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. Another interesting example of this could be the infamous interview by Osama Bin Laden to an Urdu newspaper where he clearly justified his acts stating that: “The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians”. He states that the American Congress sanctions all actions taken by the government, proving that the whole of America is accountable for the violence perpetrated against Muslims; he held the whole of America responsible because they elect Congress. However, his claims surely do not justify his acts and definitely voting in elections or paying taxes is not enough to make one fair game. Again it all depends on how one perceives the concept of terror. To summarize, terrorism can never be accepted under any circumstances. But I would also not condone it. One must sympathize with the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised. The sense of injustice that they feel there is the cause of even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of killing innocent people, I also sympathize with the demands of terrorists and their mindsets which cause them to do such horrible deeds. As far as its justifiability is concerned, any clear cut response would be illusive and thus cannot be found according to me. References Primoratz, Igor., (2011) Terrorism: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 26 April. 2012. Retrieved from: Vague, Richard. (2007) “Terrorism: A Brief for Americans” Skewed and Reviewed. 26 April 2012. Retrieved from: www.americaspurpose.org> Wilkins B. T. (1992) Can Terrorism be Justified? Terrorism and Collective Responsibility (pp. 535-537) In Taylor and Francis Books Bibliography Bloom, M., (2005), Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press. Burke, Jason, (2004), “Al Qaeda.” Foreign Policy 142 (pp. 18-26). James E. White, (2009), Contemporary Moral Problems, Ninth Edition GCE A Level General Paper Essay. 25 April. 2012. Retrieved from: Read More