Terrorism and the Ethics of War
Cambridge University Press, 5/13/2010
EAN 9780521199957, ISBN10: 0521199956
Hardcover, 328 pages, 22.9 x 15.2 x 2.2 cm
Language: English
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.