Le Francophone.

23 août 2009

Topic: Can terrorist acts of violence be morally justified? Discuss with reference to Ted Honderich’s concept of “Terrorism

Terrorist acts of violence express the existence of Terrorism network. For decades, these acts have been perpetrated under suicide or state terrorism shape. Therefore, they should not be perceived as a new phenomenon. Nonetheless, since the September 11^th terrorist attacks in 2001 the word terrorism has been amplified and become one of the most sensible to listen to. Terrorist acts of aggression engender multiple effects towards the victims and the witnesses. Surprisingly, they serve as an act of achievement acknowledged in perpetrator’s side. In this situation where it seems to be difficult to comprehend who is wrong and who is right, it is of necessity to call upon philosophical theories in order to establish the truth and particularly the moral justification of terrorist acts of violence.  For this reason, this essay refers to the principle of “Terrorism for humanity as portrayed by Ted Honderich. This paper is subdivided in three main parts. The first part focuses primarily on the general spectrum of information on terrorism and violence including terminology definitions, today’s main terrorists’ organisations, recent terrorists attacks in particular the 11 September 2001 on US soil, Gaza and Israel started at the end of 2008 and early this year. Next point to look at would be the consequences of violent terrorists’ attacks especially in countries where those attacks have been carried out and what was the response in term of reprisal and justification.  And finally, Ted Honderich’s principle of “Terrorism for Humanity” will be considered.

In the simplest term terrorism can be defined as

A use of physical force that injures, damages, violates or destroys people or things, with a political and social intention, and whether or not intended to cause fear to people in general, and raising a question of its moral justification-either illegal violence within a society or violence between states and society not according to international law, and smaller-scale than war. (Honderich, 2003,p15).

Two main types of terrorism exist. Suicide terrorism and state terrorism. The first type practices are conducted by members of fundamentalists’ organisation in particular Muslims extremists. In philosophical point of view, terrorists can be viewed as ontologists; they act according to their belief and give less value to human being. The second one: state terrorism aims to the maintenance of power by those who rule. For example, fear against communist spreading out lead US in committing acts of violence in numerous countries around the world. (Barker, 2000, pp81-84). Surprisingly, state acts of violence have moral justification.

There are several terrorist organisations such as ETA in

Spain

McCann (2006) argues that on reprisal to the attacks the USA Patriot Act 2001 was enacted and implemented. War on terror was therefore declared. The deployment of Americans soldiers in

Afghanistan

Palestine

Dershowitz (2002) discusses that a total of 73 Palestinian terrorists acts have been perpetrated in different countries of the world from July 22, 1968 to September 4, 1997. Furthermore, Palestinians have received 33 benefits from several organisations, states and religious figures such as United Nations Organisation, Presidents of USA and the Popes. The search was conducted from December 10, 1997 to March 22, 2000.

As a consequentialist, Ted Honderich points out, that terrorism in all its form affects, the vulnerable individual depraving this later from the basic natural rights which are: life, freedom and access to property as John Lock predicted. Furthermore, he states that, the terrorism for humanity goes against the principal of humanity. The killing of innocent by acts of violence in all its kind makes it difficult for the innocent to prosper and have a decent life. Zionism and new Zionism against Palestinians perpetrated by Israelis undervalue their lives and imprison them in their own land. This leaves Palestinians with no other alternative than to use terrorist acts of violence. Due to

Israel

O’Murchadha (2006) points out that, when dealing with violence the philosophical approach must consider the three following elements: perpetrator, victim, and witness. These three representations are not dissociable in terms of moral accountability. The perpetrator is liable for causing harm, physical or psychological to the victim. The victim is attacked because there can be a direct or indirect relationship with the aggressor. The witness shares the guiltiness because of not doing anything to prevent or condemn acts of violence.

In the light of all arguments and counter-arguments on terrorism mentioned throughout this paper, it seems plausible to state that terrorists’ attacks are morally wrong because they kill innocents’ people, destroy their homes, businesses; affect their lives and health in present and future time. Furthermore, their acts bring terror and fear, destabilise institutions and governmental policies. As a matter of fact, any state or government around the world has moral obligation to protect its citizens and territorial integrity. Once, these prerogatives have been breached it is of duty to use self-defence rights. However, perpetrators’ acts are arguably justified as they have reasonable grounds which explain their actions, though refused for acceptance by the victims. Any country in the world will struggle to condone the occupation of its territory. In fact it would constitute a call for war. Palestinians and particularly Hamas perpetrate suicide terrorism against

Israel

This essay has considered violence terrorist attacks and the moral aspect of it by applying Ted Honderich’s principle of “Terrorism of Humanity”. The concept of the word terrorism is difficult to define, therefore it renders the conflict without resolution as the perpetrators and the victims have different grounds of reasons justifying their positions. The witness brought into the circle of violence left confused and undecided. But by applying, the principal of humanity according Ted the issue gets clarification on how to apprehend and understand it. The recognition of reasons of terrorists’ violence attacks by the victim and the respect of human values by the perpetrator and the impartial judgement of the witness might put and an end to this conflict and save innocent lives.

Commentaires

Poster un commentaire

Rétroliens

URL pour faire un rétrolien vers ce message :
http://www.canalblog.com/cf/fe/tb/?bid=379142&pid=14827449

Liens vers des weblogs qui référencent ce message :