Censorship should not be pracitced since the free spread of ideas is needed to have a free society. This is not to say that those who consider a government to be gravely unjust have a moral license to kill its officials, but only that if they do so, that will not be terrorism, but rather political assassination.
Terrorism is acts against civilians, children, old people, and innocent individuals. Lastly, civil disobedience took on deeper connotationsas a result of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
Wilkins, B Terrorism and collective responsibility. If we refuse to resort to terrorism in order not to target innocent persons, and thus fail to prevent some other persons from perpetrating atrocities, it is only the perpetrators who will be morally responsible for those atrocities.
Another good example of a mainstream definition is provided in C. Theories and Cases, Lanham: The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government and that they voted for their president. Terrorism is the deliberate use of often lethal violence against innocent people for the sake of intimidating and coercing some other people.
If a war is to be just it has to be defence of the people and no other. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression.
According to mainstream just war theory one does not lose immunity against acts of war only by fighting in an unjust war, but by fighting in any war Walzer This, he claims, is the distinctive wrong terrorists commit.
By doing these king of things, Terrorism is expected. Goppel, Anna,Killing Terrorists: However, in exceptional circumstances considerations concerning consequences—the price of not resorting to terrorism—may be so extremely weighty as to override those of justice and rights.
Indeed, historically, the state has been the greatest terrorist. Terrorism is wrong in itself, for it violates some of our most important rights and constitutes a grave injustice.
This is not a serious position to hold. Would the people repressed under the apartheid police state have kept faith with the ANC if there had not been a dimension of armed resistance to the struggle?
Furthermore, considerations of justice and rights carry much greater weight than considerations of good and bad consequences, and therefore normally trump the latter in cases of conflict. Is war ever justified? Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism.
It is always immoral to do so. Defensive- ie defence of invaded country When country wish to invade a country simply for resources, land. Terrorism is often associated with violence, but that is because violence is a very effective means of intimidation. Maybe then, a word other than terrorism should be used in this instance.
No, tortured is never justified. This position, too, comes in different versions. Here, as elsewhere, consequentialism proves much too permissive with regard to questionable and even repugnant means.
Immediate and severe actions would be taken.Terrorism cannot be justified. Freedom fighters and terrorists do the exact same thing. They both fight and say that it was something they believed in and that it was for a good cause. It is hard to justify whether the cause was good bad or bad, let alone being able to tell if terrorism can be justified or not.
Research Essay: Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.“ This is a popular quote regarding the state of terrorism, and how certain people may consider terrorism justifiable. Justifying terrorism is, however, not different from justifying innocent slaughter.
Terrorism is now a well established feature of world politics and conflict. Indeed, the literature on this particular form of political violence is seemingly endless.
This paper shall take precedence with the highly contested issue of whether terrorism can ever be justified.
Terrorism, in most cases, can never be justified. If you’re planting bombs in markets or targeting random civilians, that will never ever be justified by anyone with a brain in their skull. You can’t get anywhere by terrorising the people. You can’t force anyone to do something they don’t.
PHIL/POLS/INTP Can terrorism ever be morally justified? killarney10mile.com This essay shall provide a case that terrorism can never be morally justifiable. The question shall be explored, with comparisons of definitions of the term 'terrorism' and exploration of what 'terrorism' constitutes.
Yes - depending which side you are on. Also 'terrorism' can and is at times looked upon as the poor man's war. Don't forget, we sort of invented it .Download