Ethical Justification for Terrorism

When dealing with the ethical question of terrorism, it’s important to understand the ambiguity of the word itself. What is terrorism exactly? While the meaning may be subjective, the term terrorism is traditionally described as the use of force or violence to inspire social or political change in a random, arbitrary fashion. The term terrorist has recently become a very popular word in American politics, and brings up a series of moral questions to be deliberated. Can terrorism ever be justified? Of course it can, and act utilitarianism can most certainly justify it.

Again whether or not certain acts are terrorism is very much dependent on the observer’s political/moral bias. However, while expounding no moral judgment whatsoever, let’s look at some instances where (by definition) terrorism was used and brought about a greater good for the society.

âÂ?¢ The American Revolution – prior and during the War the colonists used terrorist tactics to incite fear into British tax collectors, British loyalists, and those who weren’t on the side of their revolution.
âÂ?¢ The current struggles of the Maoists in Tibet; using tactics that the West have labeled “terrorism” against an oppressive monarch.
� The resistance forces in Iraq are fighting against an unjust, illegitimate occupation and will eventually come out victorious.
âÂ?¢ The North Vietnamese were called “terrorists” in their struggles against yet another unjust, illegitimate occupying force.
� The French Revolution has often been cited as being plagued with terrorism, yet brought about the end to absolute monarchy in France (until Napoleon).

Were the individuals who participated in these events “terrorists?” This is a highly debatable issue, for the apparent success rate of these movements is apparent in history today.

The common element throughout all that data is the fact that violence was only used as a means of the last resort when all peaceful alternatives had been exhausted and no longer provided the most utility for the greatest amount of people. If the act of “terrorism” maximizes the well-being of the entire populace then it can surely be justified. While peaceful means should always be a consideration, and used prior to physical violence, when these means don’t reach the appropriate ends, is when man is forced to turn violent. However, the act utilitarian must answer a few questions before engaging in what could potentially be considered “terrorism.”

Firstly, is terrorism the most effective and efficient way to reach the desired goal? Many times terrorism is not the most effective and efficient means, such as when it hardens the opposition to your use of violence, while passive resistance may create sympathy for your cause. This is an imperative consideration. However, this doesn’t mean that terrorism won’t necessarily be the most effective and efficient means to an end. Often times, passive resistance can result in physical violence from the opposition, when this happens violence is going to be the ultimate solution to the problem.

Secondly, is the desired goal worthy enough of justifying the terrorist act? This again is dependent on social perspective. Is the reunification of Ireland an important enough goal for the IRA to continue to fight for? Is national sovereignty a worthy enough goal for the Iraqi Resistance to continue fighting against American occupation? The question of whether or not the end result is worth the violence does not have an easy answer, a lot of consideration for all those involved has to be taken before violence is used.

The problem with justifying terrorism is that most of the time consequences aren’t taken into consideration, and biases cloud the humane judgments of most human beings. If we can justify that the Iraqi resistance movement is a just struggle against occupation, then we should also be able to proclaim that the Palestinian Liberation Organization is a just struggle against Israeli occupation. These questions and consequences need to be thoroughly considered; when these consequences are not taken into consideration, events such as the massacre of Russian students by Chechen rebels can take place. Needless violence does not fall into act utilitarian ethics though, and is only a perversion of the notion of spreading utility amongst the populace.

In conclusion, acts of terrorism are about as vague in meaning as the word itself. Subjectivity and personal biases have always flawed perspectives in morality, but we have to take an objective route in dealing with ethical questions. Is the act of terrorism justified? Only when it is in the best interest of the greatest amount of people, when the goal is worthy of the cost, and when all other means of resistance have been exhausted. In principle act utilitarian does justify terrorism, and it is through this model that we can make objective observations of the world around us today, and perhaps answer these perplexing ethical questions.