use of violenceuse of violence

is any violence against humans justified?

what about violence in entertainment, sport, etc.?

Wars? just war theory, more below.how can violence be justified?

is any violence against humans justified?

what about violence in entertainment, sport, etc.?

Wars? just war theory, more below.how can violence be justified?

TERRORISM

• CAN IT BE EXERCISED BY GOVERNMENT OR STATE?

• IS IT CRIMINAL OR A TYPE OF WAR?

• IS IT EVER JUSTIFIABLE?

STATE VIOLENCE

• ASSASSINATION!

• CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

• STATE AS CENTRAL AND CONCENTRATED POWER.

• DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

PRIMORATZ

• WHAT IS TERRORISM?

• DEFINING TERRORISM TO CAPTURE OUR MORAL REPUGNANCE.

• NOT INTERESTING IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT IS MORAL ACCEPTABLE OR NOT.

PRIMORATZ

• GOAL: TO GIVE A NARROW DEFINITION AND TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM POLITICAL ASSASSINATION.

• ETYMOLOGY: REIGN OF TERROR.

PRIMORATZ

• ELEMENTS OF TERRORISM:

• COERCION AND INTIMIDATION, BUT NOT ESSENTIAL.

• FEAR IS INSUFFICIENT ALSO: PROFESSORS TO STUDENTS!

• INDISCRIMINATE VIOLENCE IS ESSENTIAL.

PRIMORATZ

• INNOCENTS DISTINGUISHED FROM GUILTY.

• TERRORISM MAKES NO DISTINCTION.

• NO DISTINCTION FROM DIRECT AND INDIRECT TARGETS, UNLIKE WAR AND ASSASSINATION.

PRIMORATZ

• DISAGREEMENT WITH LAQUER.

• IT IS RANDOM AND IT IS DIRECTED AT THE INNOCENT, CIVILIANS FOR EXAMPLE.

• TARGETING OF INNOCENTS IS ESSENTIAL TRAIT OF TERRORISM.

PRIMORATZ

• IN WAR, IMMUNITY IS LOST, WHILE INNOCENTS HAVE IMMUNITY.

• HOW IS IMMUNITY LOST?

• IF I ALLOW A TERRORIST TO STAY AT MY HOUSE, HAVE I LOST IMMUNITY?

PRIMORATZ

• LOSING IMMUNITY:

• 1. I ATTACK SOMEONE

• 2. I JOIN SECURITY SERVICE

• 3. I HOLD OFFICE IN REGIME OF VIOLENCE OR WITH UNJUST POLICIES.

PRIMORATZ

• PURPOSE OF TERRORISM: TO HAVE GOVERNMENT OR ORGANIZATION CHANGE THEIR COURSE. REALLY?

• AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR BOTH?

PRIMORATZ

• DEFINITION: “THE DELIBERATE USE OF VIOLENCE, OR THREAT OF ITS USE, AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE, WITH THE AIM OF INTIMIDATING OTHER PEOPLE INTO A COURSE OF ACTION THEY OTHERWISE WOULD NOT TAKE.”

PRIMORATZ

• SUMMATION OF SORTS:

• TERRORISM HAS TWO TARGETS, BUT MAINLY TARGETS INNOCENTS.

• MANY ARMIES ENGAGE IN IT.

• COVERS BOTH POLITICAL AND NON-POLITICAL TERRORISM.

• DEFINITION IF MORALLY NEUTRAL.

PRIMORATZ

• SUMMATION CONTINUED...

• DOES NOT ANALYTICALLY LEAD TO CONCLUSION TERRORISM IS IMMORAL.

• DEFINITION SEEMS TOO NARROW, NOT CAPTURING ALL TYPES.

JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN

• SOME INTROS:

• DOUBLE-EFFECT: SPECIFIES CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSION MAY BE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TO BRING ABOUT CONSEQUENCES WHICH ONE WOULD NORMALLY AVOID.

• RESULT IN GOOD AND BAD/EVIL EFFECTS

ELSHTAIN

• USES JUST WAR THEORY TO DETERMINE IF WAR AGAINST TERRORISM IS JUSTIFIED. 911 SPECIFICALLY

• JUST WAR THEORY

• JUS AD BELLUM--3 ELEMENTS

• 1. JUST INTENTIONS: SELF DEFENSE AGAINST SUBSTANTIAL AGGRESSION.

ELSHTAIN

• 2. CONSEQUENCES OUTWEIGH SACRIFICES.

• 3. WAR IS WIN-ABLE. PROSPECT OF PEACE.

ELSHTAIN

• HER APPLICATION OF JUST WAR THEORY TO ATTACK AGAINST IRAQ AND TO WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.

• QUESTIONS?

ELSHTAIN

• 1. RIGHT INTENTIONS: SHE SAYS YES TO THIS. HELPING OTHERS AND IMPROVING AFGHANISTAN.

• PROPER PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED IN DECISION TO GO TO WAR.

• INTENTION TO “PUNISH WRONGDOERS AND TO PREVENT THEM FROM MURDERING CIVILIANS IN THE FUTURE.”

ELSHTAIN

• 2. CRITERION OF LAST RESORT.

• NO OTHER OPTIONS. CLAIMS ALL OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED. U.N. NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAQ.

• REQUIRES STRINGENTLY THAT ALL PEACEFUL EFFORTS ARE EXHAUSTED.

ELSHTAIN

• 3.PROSPECT FOR SUCCESS.

• CAN THE WAR BE WON?

• ALWAYS TRICKY SHE ADMITS. RED HERRING: THE LIBERATION OF AFGHANISTAN?

ELSHTAIN

• 4. ARE THE MEANS JUST? BIG QUESTION!

• GOOD CONSEQUENCES MUST OUTWEIGH OFFENSIVE MEANS.

• UNJUST MEANS ARE OFTEN USED.

• PACIFISTS VS REALISTS!

ELSHTAIN

• PACIFISTS: REJECT ALL VIOLENCE AS UNJUST MEANS.

• REALISTS: ACCEPT ALL MEANS WHATSOEVER TO BRING ABOUT GOOD END. (ATOMIC BOMB DROP ON HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI.)

ELSHTAIN

• 5. PROPORTIONALITY AND DISCRIMINATION

• LEVEL OF FORCE MUST BE COMMENSURATE WITH NATURE OF THREAT. NO EXCESSIVE FORCE?

• DISCRIMINATION: NEED TO DISTINGUISH COMBATANTS FROM NON-COMBATANTS.

ELSHTAIN

• NON-COMBATANTS: “WOMEN, CHILDREN, THE AGED, THE INFORM, ALL UNARMED PERSONS GOING ABOUT DAILY LIVES, PRISONERS OF WAR. . .”

• STRICT LIMIT IS IMPLIED HERE! NON-COMBATANTS ARE IMMUNE.

ELSHTAIN

• LEGITIMATE TARGETS:

• INFRASTRUCTURE: BUT CIVILIAN USED!

• NEED TO MINIMIZE CASUALTIES.

• CONDUCT OF SOLDIERS: WHAT IS PROPER.

• CONCLUDES LIKELY SUCH A WAR IS JUST.