Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSG (10,000)
PHL (200)

LEC20 – Counter Terror Nov 19 2009

Course Code
Tom Hurka
Study Guide

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 1 pages of the document.
PHL378: War & Morality
LEC20 Counter Terror
Nov, 19th, 2009
! intentional severe damage
! violates doctrine of double effect
! group and not individual
! can be satisfied by state and informal grouping of ppl
! state terrorism: government in war intentionally bomb civilians (terror bombing)
some ppl say the state cannot practice terrorism b/c the definition says its only practiced
by groups who try to overthrow government
! terrorism is a political act
! act motivated by political ideals/grouping
! but need not be aiming at changing politics (political purpose)
! terrorism does not need to spread fear b/c
! in moral assessment of terrorism as rejectionable all we need is the doctrine of double effect
and the offshoot of that is spreading fear
! some terrorist attack are aimed at creating anger as opposed to fear
! what if someone who attacks non-combatants but believes they are combatants
! if the mistake is conceptual / moral than it is terrorism, but if it is factual than it is not
How Gov't Ought to Respond to Sub-State Terrorism
! law model and war model
! target killing is allowed in certain areas (Yemen)
! there is no government (not a zone of war or zone of peace)
! law cannot be applied in certain areas because its not under control by the government
! Waltzer defence of hybrid approach: pg. 11
! 2 moral and political limits
! have to be sure that the ppl who are attacked are the targets you are aiming for (ie.
terrorists); prove beyond a reasonable doubt
! we have to be sure that we do not kill civilians in the process of aiming for terrorists
! if terrorists use ppl. as shields than we have to find ways around the shield just as we expect
the police to do
! Luban see the basis of war and law model as completely incoherent: pg. 12
! law: within states
based on shared values within a community
the reason we assume ppl innocent until proven guilty is b/c they are assumed to share
the values of the community
but the more plausible explanation of the above is because we don't want to indict
innocent people
! war: b/w states
there is conflicting values b/w communities
but that is not always the case, sometimes countries fight just for territory
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version