Jack Zinda
Terrorism is a form of violence that is nearly impossible to justify. The mere reason behind terror makes it impossible to adhere to the just war doctrine. Terrorism is designed to bring about change in the governing power through the fear and destruction of non-combatants. As Valls points out, in the majority of cases, terrorism is seen as non-state actors carrying out violent acts. Valls argues that because these are non-state actors committing the crimes they are rebuked as brutal and illegitimate forms of warfare. He argues that the actor who commits the violence is the reason for the outcry against terrorism. This seems hard to reconcile if one condemns state ran intentional killing of civilians as terrorism as well. That is to say that both state and non-state actors can be guilty of terrorism and neither is justified in their endeavors. Valls goes on to argue that certain nations have the right for self-determination within a state, and therefore have a right to use terrorism in order to obtain. It seems it would be justified to use warfare like tactics against combatant bodies within the dominating state, but not against its non-combatant citizens. If a nation does use terrorist means against a nation within a state in order to bring about change then they are violating the right of self-determination against people, in the same way they feel the state is.
Valls is correct when he argues that it does not matter who the actor is when committing violence in the name of sovereignty or self-determination.
A strong argument could be made against terrorism on the basis that it is always wrong to attack non-combatant populations and therefore terrorism is always wrong whether committed by the state or non-state actors.
Valls argues that terrorism may be successful in some case. He lists the example of the bombing of US Marine barracks in Beirut and their subsequent withdrawal as an example of successful terrorism. This seems incorrect when the definition of terrorism is narrowed to the deaths of non-combatants, one would have a difficult time arguing of marines as non-combatants. It seems this example could be seen more of unconventional warfare rather than a terrorist act. This being said an example of successful terrorism seems difficult to identify. Terrorism by its definition and lack of success seems a unethical form of combat.
From:
The Clinton Scandal.
Cronin and Genovese assert that private moral issues do not matter
more than public moral issues or behavior. Basically, a political figure can
have a questionable or bad private moral life, and still be a good leader and
have good public character. This is based on the public’s past acceptance of
questionable private behavior in the lives of former Presidents, and also
relying on the indicator of past and current public behavior.
Cronin and Genovese center on the act of adultery, and do not give as
much attention to the lying involved in the questionable behavior, which was
to most the main issue at hand. Clinton’s adulterous behavior had happened in
private, but in every President’s life, what is private easily becomes public,
and Clinton was publicly confronted with events and allegations. Once they
had become public, Clinton either ignored the accusations, responded that it
was none of the public’s business, or responded by admitting the allegations.
At no point did he specifically lie. However with the Lewinski affair he
chose to lie. Cronin and Genovese only devote one paragraph on page 109 to
this fact when they discuss the underlying motivations for why people lie as
President. They admit that Clinton’s lie appears to be motivated by self-
interest, and not by the promotion of the public good. However, 2 paragraphs
down, they leave out motivation from the test of character in a public
official. I believe that motivation is key in determining character, and if a
President is motivated by self-interest when he commits an unethical act, like
lying about what had become a public issue. The dirty hands paradox does not
apply here because his lying was not about necessity or desire to pursue
national interest. It was the pursuit of self-interest alone. When this self
interested motivation is explicitly exposed, how does the public know that the
President will not be solely motivated by similar self-interested principles
in endeavors directly related to national interest? We should value and seek
leaders that are guided by national interest and what is good for the nation,
not guided by their own interest, and what is solely good for that specific
leader.
From: "Adena Young" <>
Andrew Valls claims there are times in which terrorism, or political violence by nonstate actors, is morally justified. Many individuals automatically condemn terrorism as it is conducted by nonstate organizations, while viewing the same action by states as permissible. To prevent this double standard, Valls evaluates the acts of states and nonstates using the framework of the just war theory as the criterion. According to Valls, nonstate groups have the same rights as states to justify their acts of violence.
The moral justifications of going to war are determined by a just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, probability of success and proportionality. The just war theory concludes states have a moral justification for going to war if they have a just cause, in which they are defending the state against a violation or threat of violation to territory or independence. Based on the right of self-determination, the state can defend its ground. Valls claims other groups within the state can also defend their right of self-determination. Similarly, states are not the only entity with the legitimate authority to justly go to war. Legitimate authority is determined by whether or not the organization adequately represents the interests of its people; some state and nonstate organizations have legitimate authority, just as some do not. Both state and nonstate actors can also meet the right intention category. Additionally, Valls claims if states can reach the point of last resort, so too can nonstates. Whether or not all other nonviolent means have been exhausted is debatable for both groups. The proportionality between the costs and benefits is also debatable, as it depends on how individuals weigh and determine these factors. Success probability also depends on numerous aspects. The just war theory states violence should not be committed if the goal has little chance of being reached. Yet, to determine if a terrorist act is successful, one must first be aware of the terrorists’ concept of success. If the goal is simply to kill, success is easily attained.
The moral justifications in war are determined by proportionality and discrimination. Once again, it is possible for terrorists to meet these qualifications. The main difference in a just war and terrorism is innocent lives are targeted in terrorism.
Valls concludes some terrorist attacks are morally justified, as they comply with the just war theory, just as some state attacks are morally justified. However, he points out, “not that terrorism can be justified but that if war can be justified, then terrorism can be as well” (571).
Sha Embree
October 8th
The justification for the use of terrorism depends significantly on the definition you use for terrorism. There is an apparent variety of definitions on the market.
Andrew Valls suggest terrorism does not have to necessarily involve victims of random violence. He argues you could easily blow up a empty building. While Carl Wellman defines terrorism as "the use or attempted use of terror as a means of coercion." This could be a threat without the actual use of violence. Annette Baier suggest that terrorism may be a means of drawing attention to a cause through shocked attention. This would contradict the notion of the use of terrorism to induce fear in the terrorist's audience. For the sake of using a working definition we will utilize Valls' definition of terrorism; violence to achieve political goals.
Terrorism apparently is justified by the people implementing the terrorism. One could speculate the cause is just and the actions necessary for effect. The use of terrorism is a means to an ends. The use of terrorism has been used successfully for political goals. The bombing in 1982 of the Marines' barracks in Beirut. The net effect, the withdrawal of American troops. Wilkins contends the use of terrorism helped national independence for Algeria and Kenya. The outcome of terrorism may be unpredictable, but it is an attention getter! One justification could be the greatest good argument. Another, being Valls' theory of "Just Cause". If one can justify war, then terrorism falls under the same context.
Regardless of the horrible connotations surrounding terrorism, we must recognize terrorism as a new form of warfare or political agendas. In the world we live in, terrorism is real and justified by the ones implementing the terror. Just as we now have a morning after pill for quick abortions, morals and issues are less important than the desired result. In agreeing with Valls' stance, we have to justify terrorism because if their is no logical reason or political agenda then we are victims of true evil, with no hope of reason.
Eric Stein
Capstone
The United States was forced to react to a bad situation and ignored most of the warning signs that a disaster such as September 11th was imminent. Now so many are quick to judge how the U.S. should or shouldn t take action against a terrorist threat. They cite biblical and other texts that affirm their perspectives and ignore the ones that would not support opposite arguments. Pavlischek s article summarizes both arguments and helps us make a more informed argument, at least more informed than the average frivolous email debate or spouting off from opinionated undergrads.
After reading the Pavlischek article, and from my knowledge on the present situation, I think that the U.S. is following more the route of the realist ideology in its war on terrorism. While this is a secondary source on Machiavelli, the realist s idea of war is the same regardless. Our president thinks that a declaration of war should be just an extension of politics, which agrees with Pavlischek s viewpoint. Making such a decision without understanding the full moral significance of our actions would suggest that our motives to prevent worldwide terrorism and the destruction of capitalist societies are clouded by our desire for the revenge of the attack on our sovereign. When deciding whether the war is a just war or whether it is more realistic, we must pay attention to the reasoning behind the war. Was the United States attacked? Yes. Were we forced to retaliate? No. Is there something to gain from retaliating? Yes. Does this gain outweigh the moral costs of a forceful military response? I think yes and both Machiavelli and Pavlischek would agree with me in this article. Machiavelli s realist perspective states that war can be necessary when it upholds life and liberty, and especially when it is the logical decision. Pavlischek writes that if terrorism is not challenged, then our society will be pushed back even further, which would ultimately lead to an era were warfare would not be controlled by public interest and the moral consequences would be held to an even lesser value than at present.
While pacifists will denounce any call to war, they do not realize the problems associated with this stance. The U.S. is less concerned with the morality issues involved with its campaign on terrorism and more concerned with protecting the way of life both realists and pacifists in America have come to know and enjoy. The U.S. acts the way it does and supports the policies it does because we have given our government the responsibility to carry out and render judgments. There is a reason the U.S. does not view military force as a last resort and that is because it is ineffective in dealing with terrorist situations. The U.S. likes the realist perspective because like Pavlischek states, it leaves the authority with people who know what they re talking about . The experts on foreign policy and defense made the decision to use force in eliminating the terrorist threat, and we [American citizens] should all be confident that our leaders have made the correct decisions and that they will not be overly aggressive and overstep our military boundaries. Using force is not evil. Machiavelli s realism would support the decision to forcibly respond, but only if after making a clear, well informed decision about the situation. If we leave this decision to the real experts on such situations, then the U.S. has made a good clear realistic choice in fighting terrorism.