by Marshall Chisholm

Created on: April 10, 2010   Last Updated: April 11, 2010

"Terrorism: the Ethics of Necessity"

How can you accurately classify a term that shifts meaning in accordance to perspective? One of three official definitions for terrorism is: “the deliberate use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political reasons”. However a textbook description of this does not cover the implications of the term.

The term “terrorist” now is automatically assumed with a negative connotation as it is perceived to go hand in hand with law-breaking, terror and lowly warfare tactics such as killing hostages. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Whom we consider a terrorist could be a righteous savior in the eyes of an entire population elsewhere. This is where the ethical conflicts begin, at the base of coercion through violence and threats that is viewed as duty and proper method.

However, are terrorist acts to be defined exclusively on the basis of the characteristics of the respective actions? Or, should we restrict such actions to acts preformed by non-state organizations? Above all else, is terrorism by its very nature to be morally condemned?

In the most basic concepts of it, terrorism is a tool of utilitarianism. While its end usually does not meet the intended results of utilitarianism, it does often times begin with that intent.

A radical’s mindset is frequently that once they can force others into believing or seeing what they see, oppression will no longer be necessary as everyone will be following the “right” path. It is viewed as a temporary tool for shaping opposing idealists into followers of a single ideal by physical threats or attacks, once this is achieved a supposed harmony should come about.

Yet this in itself is the irony of terrorism – the methods they use to change others are often similar to the causations of their own rebellion, thus by oppressing a mass they teach the mass unrest and eventually the mass itself will rebel in kind through radical acts.

It is universally accepted that terrorism has no single, commonly accepted description.  The US government disagrees on the exact definition of terrorism in three of its departments.  

The US State Department takes it’s definition from Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f: “the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next Page >>