1 / 10

Terrorisme

Terrorisme. 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.

smelinda
Télécharger la présentation

Terrorisme

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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.

More Related