Can terrorism ever be justified?

Introduction

In this essay, I‟ll investigate whether terrorism can be justified. Terrorism is usually
characterised by violent actions for important aims like politics, economics and
religion. The problem with terrorism is that innocent people are killed in the course of
these violent actions since terrorists act no matter what. Terrorism is getting bigger
nowadays and it is probably happening because the world has become more
interconnected and interdependent. I will discuss terrorism from the viewpoints of
both deontologists and consequentialists. Since consequentialists care about
consequences, they can approve terrorism if it‟s for a possible greater good.
However, deontologists who care about actions and rules might believe that the
action of killing is just wrong. After reviewing the state of terrorism in the world, I will
develop further the possible causes of terrorism and the concepts of deontologist
and consequentialism in the context of terrorism. I will then present my analysis of
the situation to justify my own opinion: no greater aim can be justified by terrorism
because the human life is priceless.

Literature Review

According to the website Statista, terrorism has caused about 130,000 fatalities
between 2006 and 2013. Since it is now 2015 and that acts of terrorism started
before 2006, there are a lot more fatalities than 130,000. Terrorism has a long
history. The French revolution (1789-1799) had lots of terrorist actions that caused
fear and killed lots of people. The French Revolution unleashed a wave of conflicts
throughout the world. In September 2001, Al-Qaeda attacked the United States and
terrorist attacks have risen since then. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are the
countries who have had the most terrorist attacks. According to Statista, those three
countries have had 7,400 attacks. Al-Qaeda has launched attacks on 14 countries
throughout the world and has killed 4,000 people. Recently, the terrorist organisation
Al-Shabaab attacked a shopping mall and a college in Kenya causing destruction of
life and materials. Terrorists use different tactics that are categorised into attrition,
intimidation, provocation, spoiling and outbidding (Wikipedia). To cause damage,
they use bombing, suicide attacks, rocket and mortar attacks, chemical and
biological weapons, aircraft attacks and plane hijackings (Wikipedia). Terrorism has
a massive impact on global economics and social life. Billions are spent over it. The
London financial district had to pay 1 billion pounds on a terrorist bombing (Statista).
The 9/11 attack in the USA killed 2,996 people and damaged 10 billion pounds worth
of property. Many countries such as the USA and UK have strengthened their anti-
terrorism forces and spend lots of money in order to prevent terrorism and protect
people.

1|Page
Can terrorism ever be justified?

There is a growing literature on terrorism. Some authors such as Kai Neilsen try to
justify terrorism and others such as Rudolf Bittner argue that there is no justification
for terrorism. Rudolf Bittner has defended the idea that no terrorist action can be
justified since he believes killing human beings is wrong. In Virginia Held‟s book
„How Terrorism is wrong: Morality and Political violence‟ she argues that if someone
is taking a group or a person‟s human rights then they may retaliate using terrorism.
She invites us to think on how we treat each other including the people in politics. In
Nicholas Fotion‟s book „War, Terrorism and violence‟; he believes that terrorism is
never the last resort and that when you use innocent people for your means the
outcome is always bad.

Definitions

It is difficult to give a definition of terrorism that is accepted by all. In the Oxford

dictionary, terrorism is defined as “The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and
intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”. This definition highlights the fact that the
violence is not official or authorised by the law of the country. In 1994, the UN has
defined terrorism as „„criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror
in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes
are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political,
philosophical , ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be
invoked to justify them‟‟. This is a wide definition of terrorism and does not allow any
justification. But some terrorists see themselves as freedom fighters. So, what is
terrorism? In my opinion, terrorism is all actions intended to establish that the
interests of one or group of persons are more important than those of other people.
With my definition, nobody even government can violate the human rights of other
human beings by making laws that discriminate against a minority since such laws
can cause violence and terrorism. For example, Nelson Mandela did not agree with
those who called him terrorist by arguing that when his organization took violent
actions, those actions never intended to cause the destruction of human life and that
their targeted actions were carried out to raise awareness by damaging some
materials.

Analysis

Terrorists and freedom fighters are different and similar. Freedom fighters use
peaceful means in getting their point across. But, in some cases they bomb buildings
of their enemies and sometimes hurt their enemies without hurting innocents.
However, terrorists will do anything to get their point across. They will kill innocents,
bomb expensive buildings and use dirty tactics like suicide bombing and
simultaneous attacks. Nevertheless, terrorists might say that they are freedom
fighters. Terrorists and freedom fighters may face similar problems such as racism,

2|Page
Can terrorism ever be justified?

discrimination, or violation of human rights. Moreover, terrorism can be motivated by

the belief that everybody should follow one religion; ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Boko haram
are examples of such terrorism. Racism is another motivation; KKK is an example.
Are all those reasons justification for terrorism? Consequentialists might believe that
terrorism is right if it has a good outcome. This means that if terrorists kill 100 people
but help 10,000 people then their terrorist actions are just. However, a deontologist
might believe that terrorism is just wrong because terrorists kill and that action is
morally wrong as is the intention. In my opinion, terrorism is wrong. I am saying this
by adopting a narrow view on terrorism. Why don‟t terrorists take peaceful protests
like Gandhi, M.L. King or Nelson Mandela who have shown that peaceful protests
can be powerful and bring about a desired outcome. What if the people you are
protesting against do not listen? Should we adopt violence? Gandhi, King and
Mandela have shown that patience and persistence are stronger than violence. So, if
people do not listen we should keep doing peaceful protests. Killing someone for
your means is wrong since that person could have a family or children and you
would have destroyed an entire family. Furthermore, if you had a family you would
not want that happen to you. I believe that every life is equal. That is why terrorism is
utterly wrong. I got all these quotes from the brilliant club book. Some deontologists
think terrorism is justifiable. Virginia Held wrote: „one group in society suffers human
rights violations, terrorism is the only way to stop those violations, and it targets a
group whose human rights are protected, then terrorism is justified if it leads to all
groups having their rights protected‟. In a way, I agree with Held as terrorists are
protecting themselves. Despite that, terrorism is not the last resort. Other
deontologists believe the opposite. Rudolf Bittner said: „It is a deontological principle
that the act of terrorism has the property of being morally wrong, no matter what the
circumstances or the consequences are. As such, terrorism is always wrong‟. I agree
with Bittner as it is simply wrong to kill. Some consequentialists believe that
terrorism is justifiable. „Terrorism is justified if it can be shown to be the most
effective action with the least bad overall consequences in bringing about a
desirable social order‟ (Kai Neilsen). I think Neilsen is wrong because you can never
tell the outcome and terrorism will never have a good outcome for all. „Terrorists
have „ideological‟ conceptions of the good rather than ones which represent actual
people‟s interest, terrorism is never the last resort to bring about change , and
outcomes which use innocent people as a means to an end are always
bad‟(Nicholas Fotion).I agree with Fotion because you should not use innocent
people for your means. Terrorism is never the last resort as demonstrated by
Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, or M.L. King. Terrorists can justify their killings: „Civilians
who benefit from unjust societies are somehow complicit in the perpetuation of those

societies, which is an action that is morally wrong . As such, they are legitimate
targets for violence”; such are views of Emile Henry (1872-1894), a French anarchist
and Osama bin Laden (1957-2011), the founder of Al-Qaeda. I think this is wrong
since you use other people for your means. I don‟t understand this opinion: if

3|Page
Can terrorism ever be justified?

civilians benefit from an organisation, that doesn‟t mean they are targets. If the
organisation gets benefit because of their actions why don‟t they target themselves?

Conclusion

In this essay, I‟ve discussed the possible reasons for terrorism, its tactics and
social and economic consequences and how consequentialism and deontology view
terrorism. Sometimes, terrorists have a good reason to terrorise, such as the
government being unfair in the French Revolution. However, terrorism is deadly.
There is also the problem of distinguishing between terrorists and freedom fighters.
Some people justify terrorism by saying that it can help people overcome their
human rights problems but we need to account for other people‟s human rights too. I
think that terrorism is wrong because it violates human rights, it uses people for its
means and above all it kills innocent people. My answer to whether terrorism can be
justified is that it can‟t. Even though, there may be some decent reasons to terrorise,
the actions of terrorism are not acceptable. Terrorism will never be justified as killing
will never be justified even if it‟s out of self-defence. I believe there is always another
answer.

4|Page