Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Thomas Nagel
What makes terrorist killings any more worthy of condemnation than other forms of murder?
Rejecting terrorism does not necessarily mean rejecting their aims or ends
Terrorists Means It is the means or method that terrorists use that is
being rejected
There is no goal or end that is worth the means used
Terrorists means should not be used even to achieve a “good” end
A Difference? What is the difference between killing soldiers in war
and civilians?
What is the difference if civilians are killed in war as collateral damage or targeted directly?
Ends Justify Means? What if purposely targeting civilians will bring the war
to a faster end?
WWII Civilian Deaths It's estimated that as many as 55 million civilians died
during World War II
Hamburg, Germany
London, England
Dresden, Germany
Hiroshima, Japan The bombs immediately devastated their targets.
Over the next two to four months, the acute effects of
the atomic bombings killed between 90,000 and 146,000 people in Hiroshima
Hiroshima, Japan (Before)
Hiroshima, Japan (After)
Nagasaki 39,000 and 80,000 people in Nagasaki
Nagasaki, Japan (Before)
Nagasaki, Japan (After)
Moral Principle Respect for innocent human life
It is always wrong to aim at the death of a harmless
person
As we do not pose a threat to someone else they are not justified in hurting us
No one may kill just because it would be useful to kill
Legitimate Risk Construction projects
Police actions
Military action
If the goal / end is important enough the risk is morally acceptable as long as all safety precautions have been taken
Moral Point We must do our best to avoid or minimize civilian
casualties
If we do that, we do not violate the respect for human life
The Point of Terrorism To kill innocent human beings for whatever goal or
ends the terrorists have
This violates the Principle of Respect for Human Life
