Justification for Terror

(Note: This was a paper written for my Ethics class in '02, it is written in an argumentative form where both sides of the argument are discussed.)

Terror. The word itself defines what it is and what it creates. Fear, pain, oppression, all examples of concepts that go hand in hand with terror and terrorism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as, “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons” (Par 1). After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, public opinion would easily say that terrorism is the very definition of evil and immorality. However, terrorism can also be seen as a tool for oppressed individuals or groups to make change in a world they wouldn’t normally be able to impact. Thus, terrorism is a morally justifiable course of action in times and situations of extreme physical, emotional, and\or political oppression.

To justify terrorism, even in extreme cases, one would take a Utilitarianist stance on the topic. Utilitarianism is defined as being morally obligated, at all times, to perform that action which most likely will lead to the best consequences. Or moreover, the ends will justify the means. Terrorists believe that their backs are against the wall. Most come from small impoverished nations with little to no clout or effect on the world or world events. Furthermore, they are oppressed by western ideals and restrictions, whether it be American military bases in their backyard or NATO \ U.N. imposed governments. For instance, The United States Army Forces Central Command Saudi Arabia has had men deployed and bases set up in Kuwait since the Gulf War over 10 years ago. The people of these countries have no voice in these matters, like a child to a parent. Like that child \ parent relationship, the child will scream to get the attention and change it desires. The only choice they have is the scream of terror. The world gives its attention and change will occur, if only in time.

The direct opposition to this Utilitarian argument would be the traditional philosophical opposition of Formalism. Formalism states that there are certain actions that are immoral in and of themselves. Examples of these actions might be: Murder; Torture; Kidnaping; Thievery; Lying; etc. etc. To understand Formalism, one should just look to the Ten Commandments in the Bible. These are examples of actions that might be concidered inherently wrong, and actions like these are the very tools of terrorism, each one a moral violation according to the Formalist viewpoint. In fact, the idea of terrorism itself might be a violation of a moral Formalist rule, even if you disregard the actions that go with it. Killing is just wrong. Kidnaping is just wrong. Torture is just wrong. Terrorism is just wrong.

Granted that actions like killing, kidnaping, and torture are vile happenings and are usually far from desirable and moral, one could also say that vile actions like these can sometimes be justifiable. If being attacked by someone with a knife, a person with full intentions on ending your life, you don’t fight back, your dead. Imagine you have an opportunity to slice this persons throat with his own knife during the fight. If you believe killing is bad, period, you won’t do it, and your life may be the price for that decision. If you bury that knife deep, you end up alive and well, however. In this extreme case, the ends justify the means and in extreme cases like these, terrorism can be justified as well.

Terrorism has been justified in the past and it was our founding fathers who did it. During the Revolutionary War, the people who fought for our independence did so in a terrible way at times. Guerilla tactics, the slaughter of British families, the destruction of British property, all to send a message to the people of Britain, “Go away, we don’t want you here.” This is the same message used by middle eastern terrorists, by the IRA nationals, and many other oppressed groups. The difference is, when we did it, it was heroic.

Opposing this, it could be said that just because something occurred in the past, doesn’t mean it was morally justified. Moreover, it could be argued that many nations and people, including people living in the states at the time of the Revolutionary War, declared these acts as abominable regardless on how it all turned out in the end. The acts are still wrong today, just as they were then. Wrong is wrong.

In response, it could be argued that only the best of consequences occurred from the events of the Revolutionary War and it is these consequences that outweigh the means of accomplishing them. George Washington was a national hero, not an evil man, but when your back is against the wall, even the best of men resort to the worst of actions, and in this case, it was justifiable.

When looking to the past, one can grow a keen eye for similarities to current events. This can help in understanding these events and how they relate to events of today. Lets look at two examples from American History. Slavery was legal in the United States until the end of the Civil War in 1864. Our great nation, a nation of freedom, allowed human beings to be kept as slaves for almost 100 years, and slavery was in North America long before we even became a nation. Generations of black men and women were kept oppressed, kept ignorant, and kept obedient through measures of terror. Violence, threats, torture, these were common tools of many white slave masters. The very definition of terrorism. Now lets look at a specific event. In August of 1831, a slave by the name of Nat Turner led a group of about 40 black slaves on a killing spree. Over 50 white men, women and children were killed that day, shot, stabbed, or clubbed to death. Terror ensued. Soon, slave masters everywhere had the smell of fear in them, fear that the blacks would revolt again to change the way things were, terrorism defined again (Nat Turner, par 6). At the time of the rebellion, slavery was considered legal and moral to boot. At the time of the rebellion, Nat turner, his posse, and many other slaves considered the slaughter morally justified. If these two positions are justified on some level, both terroristic ideals, and opposed, then someone has to be wrong. That also means that in this extreme case, someone has to be right, which logically justifies the use of terrorism at that time, regardless of what side you take.

In contrast, it could be argued that neither side was truly justified in their actions. They were both wrong. Slavery, if nothing else, is evil in itself, the terroristic activities used, even more so. Nat Turner, too, was evil in his ways. Murder is never justifiable, especially innocent women and children. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Few would argue that two wrongs make a right, and slavery is wrong, but some might take the logic another step and argue that fighting for freedom is far more important. Freedom and liberty are the foundation of the human spirit and when everything is at stake, many would fight to the death to obtain it or fight to the death to defend it. It could be argued that Nat Turner and his men had nothing to lose and only freedom to gain. If that isn’t moral, not much is.

Finally, in arguing the fact that there are cases, extreme as they may be, where terrorism can be justified, I would argue against the opposition to further strengthen this idea. The opposition would say that terrorism could never be morally justified, ever. The opposition would just say that it is inherently wrong in itself. This , I would say, is an impossibility. Never is defined as never in the past, never today, and never in the future. Never means, not one exception. I would say that would be hard to swallow. Several cases of justifiable terrorism have already been mentioned from Americas past, and no one can tell us what the future holds. Even if you discount every example previously stated, using the word never is a bold statement when looking to the future and would logically not hold water in the test of time.

Never is not such a bold expression when looked at from a Formalist viewpoint. Many would agree that Murder is never justifiable. Lying is never appropriate. Rape is never moral. It’s not such a stretch to say that terrorism is never justified.

In reply to this viewpoint though, one could once again look to those extreme cases where your life is on the line, even killing another human being can be seen ok, certainly lying to save a life can be justified. When looking to the future, one cannot know what extreme circumstances will occur. There is even an expression for it, “Never say never.”

Arguments aside, there is one major opposition to the position I take in this paper which needs to be addressed. Terrorism just doesn’t work. When Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked the jets on Sept. 11th of 2001 and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, into the Pentagon, and the attempted last target, they failed their mission in the end. The people of the United States strengthened in ways we haven’t seen since WWII. The United States declared war in Afghanistan, basically destroying the foundations of the Al-Qaeda organization. In fact, by bombing, and attacking the U.S., they have only caused us as a nation to seek out and destroy terrorists and their supporters, effectively making it harder for terrorists to stay in business. Terrorism never works so its absurd to even consider.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines success as “the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted” (par1). It’s impossible to know the long term goals of Bin Laden, what exactly he had planned, or what he still has planned, but at least on one level, the Al-Qaeda did succeed. Terror sprang in the hearts of every American around the globe on Sept 11, 2001. To this day, many Americans are afraid to fly. Many are worried about when terror will strike next. But moreover, the Al-Qaeda have succeeded in drawing attention to their cause. Before 9-11, many Americans didn’t know the name of Osama Bin-Laden, fewer still knew of the Al-Qaeda and their mission. Now both are a household name. Video tapes of Osama’s views and opinions have gained worldwide air play. Many Americans want a drastic change in foreign policy, wanting to just leave everyone to themselves and get the U.S. out of other’s business. Call it ignorance. Call it fear. Regardless of what you call it, it’s the desired effect the terrorists wanted. It worked. When you look to the future, after Bush is done chasing terrorists, things will settle down and it will renew again. It’s a cycle that will not end till either all terrorists are dead or they get what they want. Terrorism works, at least in the short term. It’s still too soon to tell the long term impacts.

I find it necessary to say that the attacks on the United States on Set. 11, 2001 were a tragedy of epic proportions. Innocent people died for a cause most don’t know of, understand, or for that matter even care about. I certainly don’t get it. I would also agree that these specific acts of terrorism were evil and immoral and it goes without saying that I am distancing myself from this behavior on a personal level. With that said, it could be argued that these are examples of those extreme cases of torment, oppression, physical or emotional pain, discussed in this paper, where acts of terrorism could lead to change and in doing so could be morally justified. I believe that change is the key. Never could you justify evil except when it leads to a change for the better. Even then, you’d have a hard case to prove.

Works Cited
“The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.” (2000): n. pag. Online. Internet. 25 Oct. 2002. Available: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=terrorism.

“Nat Turner’s Rebellion.” 3p. Online. Internet. 25 Oct. 2002. Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3p1518.html.