In \' Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?\' , Lionel K. McPherson concludes by ins
ID: 3455005 • Letter: I
Question
In 'Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?', Lionel K. McPherson concludes by insisting that “the failures of the dominant view of terrorism should lead us to adopt either a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less condemnatory attitude toward terrorism.” Do you agree with this conception of the moral alternative? If not, why do you disagree? If so, which stance do you take—a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less critical attitude toward terrorism?Can you help me answer this question please thank you In 'Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?', Lionel K. McPherson concludes by insisting that “the failures of the dominant view of terrorism should lead us to adopt either a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less condemnatory attitude toward terrorism.” Do you agree with this conception of the moral alternative? If not, why do you disagree? If so, which stance do you take—a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less critical attitude toward terrorism?
Can you help me answer this question please thank you
Can you help me answer this question please thank you
Explanation / Answer
I agree with with the conception taking a more critical stance towards conventional war, because planned mass killing cannot be justified according to me under any circumstances. While terrorism involves the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians, conventional wars too, despite operating within legal boundaries inflict harm on scores of individuals. A more critical attitude towards wars is therefore justified.
Related Questions
Hire Me For All Your Tutoring Needs
Integrity-first tutoring: clear explanations, guidance, and feedback.
Drop an Email at
drjack9650@gmail.com
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.