"Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so"."
While Michael Walzer's views on terrorism are complex, his statement that terrorism can be morally justified only in the extreme case of a nation facing complete destruction and needing to target non-combatants to survive is a highly debated and controversial position.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of Walzer's perspective and the context surrounding it:
The Just War Theory:
Walzer, a prominent just war theorist, is known for his work on the moral limits of warfare. He argues that even in war, there are certain moral principles that must be upheld.
Terrorism as a Strategy:
Walzer views terrorism as a strategy chosen from a range of possible strategies, not as a unique or inherently immoral act.
The Exception:
He suggests that the only exception to the general prohibition against targeting civilians is when a nation or community faces an existential threat of complete destruction, and the only way to preserve itself is through the intentional targeting of non-combatants.
The Moral Entitlement:
In such a dire situation, Walzer argues that the nation or community is "morally entitled" to take such actions, despite the moral cost.
The Debate:
This position is highly controversial, as it raises questions about the justification of civilian deaths and the potential for abuse of such a principle.
Just War Principles:
Walzer's views are rooted in just war theory, which outlines principles for determining when a war is just and what actions are permissible during war.
Discrimination and Proportionality:
Just war theory emphasizes the principles of discrimination (targeting only legitimate military targets) and proportionality (using force in a way that is proportionate to the threat).
Terrorism and Just War:
Some scholars argue that terrorism can be evaluated through the lens of just war theory, while others argue that it is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of just war.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -2 points 3 weeksApr 8, 2025 13:15:33 ago (+0/-2)
Here's a more detailed breakdown of Walzer's perspective and the context surrounding it:
The Just War Theory:
Walzer, a prominent just war theorist, is known for his work on the moral limits of warfare. He argues that even in war, there are certain moral principles that must be upheld.
Terrorism as a Strategy:
Walzer views terrorism as a strategy chosen from a range of possible strategies, not as a unique or inherently immoral act.
The Exception:
He suggests that the only exception to the general prohibition against targeting civilians is when a nation or community faces an existential threat of complete destruction, and the only way to preserve itself is through the intentional targeting of non-combatants.
The Moral Entitlement:
In such a dire situation, Walzer argues that the nation or community is "morally entitled" to take such actions, despite the moral cost.
The Debate:
This position is highly controversial, as it raises questions about the justification of civilian deaths and the potential for abuse of such a principle.
Just War Principles:
Walzer's views are rooted in just war theory, which outlines principles for determining when a war is just and what actions are permissible during war.
Discrimination and Proportionality:
Just war theory emphasizes the principles of discrimination (targeting only legitimate military targets) and proportionality (using force in a way that is proportionate to the threat).
Terrorism and Just War:
Some scholars argue that terrorism can be evaluated through the lens of just war theory, while others argue that it is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of just war.