Khatchadhourians arguments and the Walzers post 9/11 discussion - Essay Example

? On the definitions of terrorism, offer an example of a terrorist act- real or hypothetical- that has the best chance at moral justifiability. Make your case with reference to Khatchadhourian’s arguments and the Walzer’s post 9/11 discussion. Terrorism is defined as those activities which incorporate mass destruction and innocent killing on the national level. Wars usually involve the use of force to solve disputes and deadlocks regarding governance based issues and, it only occurs between politically active communities. The acts of terrorism by countries usually involve the killing of children and women while the consequences are faced by the affected families and economies over a very long time period (Primoratz 25). Wars can never be justified as they incur large scale loss of innocent lives and destroy the overall natural and human resources of the country. However, history holds some critics and analysts who have supported the idea of morally justified terrorism. This idea basically revolves around the situations in which terrorism and mass killing becomes the only option through which societies and nations can save themselves from slavery. This paper aims to identify an example of morally justified act of terrorism with reference to the Khatchadhourian’s arguments and Walzer’s post 9/11 discussion. This topic would be of prime concern for people who believe that terrorism can never be justified. Thesis Terrorism can be morally justified in such a condition when a particular nation is subject to mass scale destruction if it does not get involved in such activities to save its existence. In this situation the act of violence consequently becomes morally justifiable because if the oppressed population does not respond to the violence then the oppressor would exert complete control over the administration of the country. This concept of morally justified terrorism closely resembles with the post 9/11 discussion on terrorism presented by Michael Walzer in the post 9/11 era. According to him, terrorism is an unsystematic and an intentional killing of people which aims to spread violence and terror among the population. It aims to exert immense pressure over the political leaders and governments. There are certain objections to Walzer’s view. For instance, his view focuses more towards the idea of liberation movements and describes few types of terrorism. Hence critics might challenge that his definition is an insufficient explanation of terrorism. While on the other hand Walzer himself admits that the idea of morally justifiable terrorism act is based upon absolute perceptions which are unattainable in the real world (Walzer). Khatchadhourian also gives reasons to morally justified terrorism by stating three basic principles which he has derived from his experience. These include: Principles of Necessity Principles of Proportion Principles of Discrimination Khadchadourian has laid out these principles in which to offer a possible framework, from which certain acts of terrorism may be justified. It emphasizes upon the mere situations in which terrorism becomes a need due to necessity, proportion and discrimination. It concludes that the retaliatory and predatory terrorism does not have any space for moral acceptability. However, political terrorism can be justified in the present world scenario. This shall be further explained by the following discussion. Discussion Let’s consider the example of Germany and Britain War of 1942. During the World War II it seemed as if Germany would win the war and subsequently become the world super power. If this really had happened then Britain would have lost its powers along with the centuries old control over the international affairs in addition to the loss of freedom and national independence. In such a condition it was almost impossible for Britain to follow the normal rules of war and terror. From the German perspective Britain was the only hindrance in its way of being the world power and therefore it was compelled to go to every extent in order to win the war. The victory of Germany was not only a direct threat to its opponent Britain, rather it was about to present awful consequences for other countries as well. This victory was an ultimate menace to the freedom and independence of people along with mass killing and heavy destruction of resources. People who were killed were actually considered at an advantage since they did not require facing the challenges of after war especially in the case Germany won. This indicates that Britain had to make some urgent decisions with respect to its position as the significant opponent of Germany. Britain was about to take an extended immoral terrorist action which was first time witnessed by the historians. In a war there is a rule that militaries are not allowed to attack civilians, they are supposed to fight only with the soldiers and those who come into their way (Primoratz 36). In the World War II Britain broke this rule of war in order to save itself from the threats of slavery and after effects of Germany’s victory. Therefore the military and political forces stepped into the cities of Germany and killed more than 600,000 people while on the other hand the remaining people were seriously manhandled and terror was induced into their lives. Approximately the freedom of 800,000 people was affected in addition to physical, mental and financial loss. This was primarily done to halt the German Leadership so that they would be compelled to stop the war and surrender to the British Forces. As soon as this mass destruction ended it was quite evident that Germany had lost the war. However, the opponent forces continued their operations and Germans were still subject to political terror (Primoratz 101). The overall situation and the possible outcomes of World War II predicted that the victory of German Forces would have forced the world population towards slavery. Therefore in such a condition the terrorist act of Britain was completely justifiable on the basis of morals. As per the definition of morally justifiable terrorist act given by Walzer, the freedom and independence of British was seriously threatened and consequently they were compelled to make terrorist attempts in order to safeguard their dominion and national prestige. However, the prolonged attack of terrorism against the German population at a time when their position was significantly weak was completely unjustified (Walzer). On the other hand Khatchadhourian justifies this act of terrorism on the basis of principle of necessity which states that as per the demand of time and supreme necessity of protecting national freedom it was substantial to spread terror, encourage mass killing and heavy destruction in Germany. In addition to this British undertook this terrorism through ensuring the involvement of politicians, hence making it a complete political terrorism act which is morally justifiable. The most serious objection that can be made over this discussion is the loss of 600,000 German lives. This is obviously a clear but case of terrorism within the limits of war, or in other words, “Walzer’s Terrorism”. This can be justified on the basis of Walzer post 9/11 discussion which states that though there are certain situations when terrorism becomes morally justifiable however, this is a theoretical explanation only and does not compensate the extensive collateral damage which occurs during such attempts of terrorism. Therefore the loss 600,000 lives have been left as an unjustified part of the discussion. However one of the main points when we discuss this comes in the face of Khatchadourian, as this action clearly violates the last resort requirement that he had talked about. Conclusion Terrorism is an act of violence and destruction, often on a mass level. However, it does become morally justifiable when the dominion of country or nation is seriously challenged. For instance, the autonomy of Britain was in danger and therefore it indulged into such terrorist activity during World War II. The views put forward by Michael Walzer and Khatchadhourian show that we may have the resources to support such acts of terrorism with moral justifications. However, the mass killings and city destructions were morally justified until Germany had lost its powers to fight against Britain. Historical records indicate that Britain continued to spread terror even after weakening the position of Germany. This indicates a highly unjustified and immoral act of terrorism projected by British military and political forces. The paper has presented substantial arguments over the morally justifying terrorism acts. However, more information and critical analysis of the topic would prove helpful in justifying the loss of 600,000 Germans during the World War II. Walzer has also discussed a principle which he has named as the doctrine of supreme emergency. According to him, self-defense, especially when the air around smells of danger, allows an entity to go against the rules of a just war and take extreme steps. Works Cited Primoratz, Igor. Terrorism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Web. 23 March 2013. Walzer, Michael. Arguing About War. London: Yale University Press, 2004. Read More