The Moral Status of Terrorism
Some Definitions: Terrorism

Coming up with a useful, non-controversial definition of
terrorism is more difficult than in the case of war.
 One big problem is avoiding question-begging definitions. A
definition is question-begging when it includes an assumed moral
stance, such as defining it as wrong (eg. “Terrorism is an immoral
type of armed conflict.”)
Terrorism (borrowed from Sterba): the use or threat of
violence against innocent people to elicit terror in them,
or in some other group of people, in order to further a
political objective (391).
 Notice what this definition implies: (1)terrorism can be
an act of state or non-state individuals/groups;
(2)terrorism is always and only directed at
innocents/noncombatants; (3)aim of terrorism is some
political.

Khatchadourian, "Terrorism and Morality"

K begins by reiterating something that
we've already noted: it is difficult to
articulate a morally neutral (non questionbegging) definition of terrorism.
 This is complicated by the common rhetorical
use of the term by governments to characterize
the behavior of any opposing forces—one
person's "freedom fighter" is another
government's "terrorist."

Despite this, we can identify a "common
core of meaning."
What's at the core?
At the core, K defines terrorist acts as:
"acts of coercion or actual use of force,
aiming at monetary gain (predatory
terrorism), revenge (retaliatory terrorism), a
political end (political terrorism), or a
putative moral/religious end
(moralistic/religious terrorism).
 Another element of the core is the
distinction between the "immediate victims"
and the "victimized" (the "indirect but real
target" of terrorist acts).

Putting JWT to Work

K seeks to correct the lack of attention paid to the
question of the moral status of torture by
employing the conceptual machinery of Just War
Theory, particularly the principles governing the
analysis of Jus in Bello.
 The three principles K focuses our attention on are:
Necessity, Discrimination and Proportionality. K argues
that the various forms of terrorism typically violate these
principles.

With regard to the Jus ad Bellum demand for a
"just cause," K insists that typically terrorist acts do
not satisfy this demand.
"Just Cause" as self-defense.
K's abbreviation of the Jus ad Bellum
requirement for a just cause is "the selfdefensive use of force."
 Clearly, predatory and retaliatory terrorism
don't meet this standard.
 Just as clearly, political terrorism, when the
political goals are immoral, would fail as
well. But, it's not clear that it would fail if the
goals were morally acceptable. The same
is true of moralistic/religious terrorism.

Necessity and Terrorism



The Jus in Bello principle of necessity requires the
use of minimal force to accomplish morally
appropriate ends. Among a range of possible
tactical means, we should always pick the one that
causes the least destruction and loss of life.
Applying this principle to the various forms of
terrorism, K. argues that the principle of necessity
seems to clearly rule out predatory and retaliatory
forms.
He doesn't speak to political or moralistic/ religious
forms. Would these always violate the principle?
Discrimination and Terrorism



The Jus in Bello principle of discrimination requires
combatants to distinguish between "non-innocent" and
innocent" targets and limit violent aggression (to the extent
possible) only to the former.
Once again, K argues that in predatory and retaliatory forms,
terrorism typically fails to discriminate properly. The situation
is much more complex in political and m/r forms, as it is in
war.
K. identifies a number of factors which clarify the situation
with regard to both these forms of terrorism and war:
○ "Innocence" refers to moral status relative to the actions in question.
○ "Innocence" is a matter of degree.
○ The relativity defined in terms of degree is causal responsibility for
the wrong which provokes the actions in question.
○ Causation can be direct or indirect.
Proportionality and Terrorism


Proportionality has both Jus
in and Jus ad significance.
In both cases, the
evaluation ultimately
requires some sort of
comparative calculation.
The calculation in the former
requires that we measure
the tactical or strategic
benefits obtained against
the costs associated with
the act/campaign.
Jus ad Proportionality

K. argues that the calculation required to
evaluate the decision to violently
respond to a given provocation (to war
or terrorism) runs afoul of a difficulty we
discussed in conjunction with
consequentialist moral reasoning.
 The comparison of incomparables.
What about Rights-Based Theories?



K. relies on the UN's Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
Key element: "Everyone has the right to life"
(407c1). Condition of the possibility of
meaning/value? Don't buy that? How about a little
Kant? To kill someone is to treat them as a means
to your end, rather than as an end in themselves.
Implication: The killing of innocents (?) justified
only on 2 conditions (Ibid.):
○ It's the lesser of two evils;
○ No one's human or moral rights are violated. (?)
The Final Word
So for K. terrorism is immoral.
 But there is at least a plausible
argument to be made, from the JWT
perspective for political and
moralistic/religious forms.

Walzer, "Five Questions"

#1, another definition: "the deliberate killing
of innocent people, at random, in order to
spread fear through a…population and
force the hand of its political leaders"
(409c1).
 Seems to rule out state terrorism, but included
with the modification of controlling political
opposition.
 Doesn't buy the equivocation: freedom fighter or
terrorist. Blowing up tourists is not freedom
fighting (Jakarta attacks, July 17, 2009).
 Never?
An Explanation but not a Defense

#2, terrorism is a choice.
 It is one of a number of possible responses to
political or social circumstances. Walzer
highlights a number of cases where the choice
was intuitively unjustified.

#3, we can explain it, but we can't defend
it.
 Two possible strategies: the situation of the
oppressed, the guilt of the oppressor.
 Neither does the job.
What should we do?

"War" on terror. Needs to be a just
(discriminating) one.
 Real wars (Afghanistan) perhaps justified by extension.

It's also a matter of police work, though
perhaps a bit more covert/dirty than we
typically tolerate.
 Walzer admits he's not clear on where to draw the line,
but seems tolerant of assassination.

We also need diplomacy and "ideological
work."
Sterba, "T and International Justice"

We've already seen Sterba's definition of T.


The use or threat of violence against innocent people to elicit terror in them, or in
some other group of people, in order to further a political objective.
Obviously, this definition includes acts like
the attacks on the WTC buildings (and
probably the Pentagon), but just as
obviously it includes lots of actions taken
by our government over the past 50-100
years: atomic bombings of Japan, Iraq
Sanction Regime, Iran-Contra (supporting
terrorism).
JWT and Anti-War Pacifism

Sterba develops a framework for the moral
evaluation of T by drawing together JWT
with a particular strain of pacifism: Anti-War
Pacifism.
 A-W P distinguished from more other forms.
○ Nonviolent Pacifism: "any use of violence is morally
prohibited;"
○ Nonlethal Pacifism: "any lethal use of force is morally
prohibited. (416c1).

Sterba believes that A-W P is straightforwardly justified by JWT.
The JWT in A-W P

Jus ad Bellum





Aggression sufficient to justify?
Non-violent means exhausted?
Violent means neither hopeless or too costly?
Typically, wars have not added up.
Jus in Bello
 Proportional?
 Discriminating?
 Typically, no.

JWT + A-W P = JWP (Just War Pacifism)
JWP and Terrorism

Clearly, JWP rules out most acts of terrorism, but
because it does not rely on a theory of Nonviolent
Pacifism, it does not in principle rule out a
justifiable use of violence against innocents.
 Harm to innocents justified if the harm is: trivial, easily
reparable, non-reparable but substantially outweighed by
consequences.
○ Spelunker thought experiment.
○ Atomic Bombings? (Unconditional Surrender?)
○ Counter-City Bombings? (Early vs. Late?)
○ Palestinian Suicide Bombings?
○ 9/11?
○ Afghanistan? Iraq?