CAN YOU HELP ME REPLY BACK TO THIS PERSON DISCUSSION: philosopher Lionel McPhers

Question

CAN YOU HELP ME REPLY BACK TO THIS PERSON DISCUSSION:
philosopher Lionel McPherson states that a big portion of citizens and philosophers view terrorism as an act of murder. He calls this “the dominant view” which he does not hesitate to criticize. He states, “the dominant view’s condemnatory attitude toward terrorism as compared to conventional war cannot be fully sustained” (McPherson). There is a list of requirements for an act to be considered to be an act of terrorism, according to today’s definition of terrorism. McPherson states, “terrorists do not have adequate authority to undertake political violence—and not the prominent argument that noncombatants should be immune from deliberate use of force against them—is the most plausible basis for finding terrorism objectionable” (McPherson). He is negating the belief that terrorism is always bad by providing that noncombatants, also known as citizens or voters, may have some responsibility in what caused the “terrorist” group to act in a certain way. This is true to a degree because we as citizens have the responsibility for who we voted into the political office. For instance, a group who was dissatisfied with the president’s political agenda may be inclined to carry out an attack on unsuspecting citizens to show their anger and disapproval. We as citizens of the same country have a moral responsibility to the person we voted into the White House. There is also a fine line between what makes war just, and a terrorizing act. In fact, wars are generally politically motivated so in a sense qualifies as terrorism. No matter the intention, deaths in war cannot be ignored and by definition of utilitarian principles, no war is better than any war which will cause inevitable casualties.

2. In your second post, choose another student's initial contribution to the thread, and comment critically and meaningfully on it. Critical evaluation doesn't mean that you must disagree -- however, if you come to the same conclusion as someone, you should still contribute something substantial and meaningful to the conversation. Can you think of factors that the student didn't consider, but that may support his/her conclusion? If you disagree, explain why, again, in a substantial, critical, and meaningful post. Finally, if McPherson were here participating in the conversation, what do you think he would say about the thread you are working on? Would he agree or disagree with you or the student? Why? Your last post is due by Sunday at

Explanation / Answer

"Is terrorism distinctively wrong" is a question posed by philosopher Lionel McPherson. He challenges the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely wrong act that causes severe harm to non-combatants or the innocent people. He questions this dominant view and states, if terrorism is wrong then how is it different from political state war that too causes severe harm harm to life and property of the innocent non-combatants. He condemns equally both terrorism and the war and equates that both are wrong morally when they are measured on the scale of severity of destruction and harm caused to the non-combatants. He supports his claim by stating that though wars do not directly intend to cause harm to the non-combatants or the civilians as terrorism does, but they even do not take measures to ensure that no civilians or the non-combatants are harmed during the action of warfare. Further he adds that the warfare techniques of todays world is highly sophisticated and highly efficient technically can end up killing more civilians than before and than any terrorist attack.Though, wars may have political just reasons and terrorism is for unjust political reasons, and wars can be justified by consequentialist and right morality philosophies whereas, terrorism is always morally wrong. But a distinction in morality cannot be made for harm caused to the civilians by both terrorism and the war and hence, 'Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong".

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.