Terrorism - Sam Black PHIL 120 Terrorism Michael Walzer...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sam Black, PHIL 120 Terrorism Michael Walzer, ‘Terrorism’ Def’n of Terrorism: ‘The random murder of innocent people’ (248). The (deliberate) systematic terrorizing of whole populations using the method of random attacks (to spread fear). (247) The avoidance of direct engagement with the enemy. Historical Claim: Terrorism emerged only after WWII, and did not resemble C19th militancy and revolutionary movements. Those movements were constrained by a ‘code of honor’. Ex.1: Russian Revolutionaries intending to kill the Czar’s official aborted the bomb plot when they saw two children on his lap. Ex.2 : 1938-9, An IRA man accidentally killed 5 civilians when intending to bomb a power station. The IRA leaders were horrified b/c they had planned to avoid killing civilians. Ex.3 : In 1944 two members of the Stern Gang who had killed a British diplomat were apprehended b/c they refused to fire on the Egyptian policeman chasing them. (249) These terrorist groups distinguished targets for the use of violence according to the following criteria: 1) Excluded: Political officials of oppressive regimes, normally, though exceptions can be made for special cases like Hitler. (Walzer may endorse this claim.) 2) Excluded: Ordinary citizens implementing oppressive laws (250). Normative Claim: Terrorism is wrong. Expl: The moral importance of personal responsibility What lies behind the moral prohibition on attacking noncombatant civilians is the distinction b/n aiming at people for what they’ve done , and aiming at people for what they are (e.g. members of society x). (250) 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SB: Walzer’s Conclusion 1. The Narrow Target of Terror Principle : It’s a necessary condition for being a target for justified political violence (violence intended to realize political aims like regime change) that a person has done something to protect that regime. (The condition is necessary and doesn’t mean that it is morally OK to attack any person who has acted to protect their government. Other conditions are necessary.) 2. The Principle’s Scope : (1) only permits targeting soldiers. It excludes attacking civilians, and political officials not engaged in a war effort. (251) The category of ‘political officials’ is vague but should minimally exclude some government agents e.g. priests, landowners who use their property on behalf of the government, health workers. It might not exclude police and intelligence workers. SB. Note these distinctions b/n targets can’t appeal to the difference b/n a person’s status and what they’ve done. At issue is what kind of actions that a person is responsible for justify killing them over (e.g. a government hired priest differs from a government hired soldier). Why accept this principle? (253)
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 8

Terrorism - Sam Black PHIL 120 Terrorism Michael Walzer...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online