Terrorism and the Ethics of War

This book provides an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity.

Stephen Nathanson (Author)

9780521137164, Cambridge University Press

Paperback, published 13 May 2010

328 pages, 6 tables
22.8 x 15.2 x 1.5 cm, 0.52 kg

'In this carefully argued work, Stephen Nathanson has brought together two areas, terrorism and the ethics of war, too often treated separately. The result is new moral clarity and insight in both areas, especially regarding the moral treatment due to civilians by purveyors of military violence. This work is particularly valuable for those seeking a moral understanding of terrorism and an appreciation of what they must do to make their condemnation of terrorism morally credible.' Steven Lee, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, New York

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

Introduction
Part I. Terrorism: What's in a Name?: 1. The problem of defining terrorism
2. Defining terrorism
3. What makes terrorism wrong?
4. Innocence and discrimination
5. 'Who dun it' definitions of terrorism
Conclusion: taking stock
Part II. Why Moral Condemnations of Terrorism Lack Credibility: Introduction: toward morally credible condemnations of terrorism
6. Why standard theories fail to condemn terrorism
7. Just war theory and the problem of collateral damage
Conclusion: categorical vs. conditional criticisms of terrorism
Part III. Defending Noncombatant Immunity: Introduction: the ethics of war-fighting: a spectrum of possible views
8. The realist challenge to the ethics of war
9. An ethic of war for reasonable realists
10. Walzer on noncombatant immunity as a human right
11. The supreme emergency exception
12. Rights theories, utilitarianism, and the killing of civilians
13. Immunity rights vs. the right of self-defense
14. A rule utilitarian defense of noncombatant immunity
15. Why utilitarian criticisms of noncombatant immunity are mistaken
16. Is noncombatant immunity a 'mere' convention?
Part IV. How Much Immunity Should Noncombatants Have?: Introduction: the problem of collateral damage
17. The problem of collateral damage killings
18. The ethics of collateral damage killings
Conclusion: terrorism and the ethics of war
Bibliography
Index.

Subject Areas: Terrorism, armed struggle [JPWL], Social & political philosophy [HPS], Ethics & moral philosophy [HPQ]