Terrorism and Political Violence

This topic examines how terrorism and other forms of political violence should be defined and morally evaluated, including whether such acts can ever be justified.

Definition

The branch of the ethics of war and violence concerned with defining and morally assessing terrorism and related forms of politically motivated violence.

Scope

This topic covers the contested definition of terrorism (especially the role of targeting non-combatants and the aim of instilling fear for political ends), the relation between terrorism and the just-war principle of discrimination, debates over whether terrorism is always wrong or only presumptively so, and the distinction between terrorism and other political violence such as armed resistance. It describes the analytical and normative debate without endorsing or condemning specific groups, causes, or events.

Core questions

• How should terrorism be defined, and does the definition build in a moral judgment?
• Is terrorism always morally wrong, or can extreme circumstances justify it?
• How does the targeting of non-combatants bear on the morality of political violence?
• What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of political violence and resistance?

Key theories

Terrorism as the targeting of non-combatants

A widely used definition, developed by Primoratz and others, treats terrorism as violence deliberately directed at non-combatants or innocents to intimidate others for a political purpose, linking its wrongness to the just-war principle of discrimination.

The 'supreme emergency' question

Drawing on Walzer's discussion of supreme emergency, debate concerns whether deliberately attacking non-combatants could be permissible to avert a catastrophic and otherwise unavoidable threat.

History

Philosophical analysis of terrorism expanded substantially in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, drawing on just-war concepts and the principle of non-combatant immunity. Coady and Primoratz produced systematic treatments of definition and justification that frame much current discussion.

Debates

Whether terrorism is absolutely wrong

Some hold that deliberately targeting non-combatants is never permissible, while others allow rare exceptions under extreme threat; the dispute parallels the 'supreme emergency' debate in just-war theory.

Key figures

• C. A. J. Coady
• Igor Primoratz
• Michael Walzer

Seminal works

• coady2008
• primoratz2013

Frequently asked questions

Why is defining terrorism controversial?

Definitions can carry moral and political weight—for example, by building condemnation into the term or by exempting state actors—so disputes over definition are partly disputes over who and what counts as terrorism.

Does this topic judge particular conflicts or groups?

No. It analyses how terrorism is defined and the arguments about its justifiability in general terms, without assessing specific actors or events.