Terrorisme

1
Terrorisme
2
Is terrorism always morally wrong?

• Depends on definition!
• Goodin Terrorism is a political wrong.
  Undermines political autonomy.
• If terrorism is defined as violence/severe force
  against innocents/non-combatants (Rodin, Coady)
  it is at least prima facie morally wrong.
• Is it also absolutely wrong, i.e. wrong under all
  circumstances?

3
Balanced exceptionism

• Ross All duties are prima facie. Duty not to
  kill the innocent is in principle not always
  valid.
• Only actually (all-things-considered) obligatory
  if no other PF obligations outweigh it..
• Overrider not to blame!
• Presumptive wrongs may be lexically ordered.
  Perhaps some can never be overridden..
• But how to compare the incomparable?

4
Moral traces

• To override a prima facie duty is not to
  abandon it. Such dutes continue to function in
  the situation () leaves residual effects, or
  moral traces (Miller 17)
• Nozick, Williams.

5
Supreme emergency

• A version of the dirty hands argument?
• Dirty hands argument Politicians must sometimes
  get their hands dirty by doing what is morally
  wrong. High stakes, great responsibility.
  (Trustees)
• But why should not supreme emergency also apply
  to nonstate actors?

6

• Nazism was an ultimate threat to everything
  decent in our lives, an ideology and a practice
  of domination so murderous, so degrading even to
  those who might survive, that the consequences of
  its final victory were literally beyond
  calculation, immeasurably awful. We see it as
  evil objectified in the world (MW 253)

7
Interpretative problems

• But what if Bush sees Al Qaeda as evil
  objectified in the world?
• Coady must we keep SE a secret?
• Should Israel be allowed to appeal to SE but not
  the Palestinians?
• Coady Why should SE only apply to state actors?
  Not to political communities?
• Perhaps Nazism was the exception?

8
Ways out

• Absolute prohibition against terrorism in all
  forms and under all circumstances
• Accept the notion of a moral tragedy, rather than
  appeal to justification (Nagel)
• In a supreme emergency we are not confronted
  with options that are both right and wrong we
  are confronted with options all of which are
  wrong. It is a moral blind alley, there is
  nowhere to turn and still be justified. (In a)
  supreme emergency we exit the moral realm (and
  enter the realm of true necessity)

9

• in a supreme emergency, a state will commit
  actions which are morally wrong in order to save
  itself and its people. While wrong, such actions
  may nevertheless be excused on the grounds of the
  most extreme duress
• (Brian Orend in Michael Walzer on War and
  Justice, 133)

10
But still

• The distinction between state and political
  communities seems unwarranted. At least it stands
  in need of justification.