Study Guides (256,433)
CA (124,648)
UTSG (8,518)
PHL (266)
PHL378H1 (1)
Tom Hurka (1)
20

LEC20 – Counter Terror Nov 19 2009

1 Page
126 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL378H1
Professor
Tom Hurka

This preview shows half of the first page. Sign up to view the full page of the document.
PHL378: War & Morality
LEC20 Counter Terror
Nov, 19th, 2009
Terrorism
! 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
terrorism
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
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
PHL378: War & Morality LEC20 Counter Terror Nov, 19th, 2009 Terrorism 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 bc the definition says its only practiced by groups who try to overthrow government terrorism is a political act act motivated by political idealsgrouping but need not be aiming at changing politics (political purpose) terrorism does not need to spread fear bc 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 terrorism How Govt Ought to Respond to Sub-State Terrorism law model and war model target killing is allowed in certain areas (Yemen)
More Less
Unlock Document


Only half of the first page are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit