Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Consequentialist justifications for terrorism presuppose ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Some acts or campaigns of terrorist violence against non-combatants can be justified

    Consequentialist justifications for terrorism presuppose a predictive certainty about political outcomes that empirical evidence on terrorism's effectiveness systematically refutes.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Empirical studies show terrorism rarely achieves stated political objectives and often backfires through increased security/public opposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequentialists require high confidence in outcome predictions, but terrorism's complex causal chains make reliable prediction epistemically impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical cases (IRA, ETA, RAF) demonstrate terrorists systematically overestimate their strategy's effectiveness relative to actual political results.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some terrorist campaigns (Algerian FLN, Cuban Revolution) did achieve major political objectives, suggesting effectiveness claims aren't wholly empirically refuted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequentialists need only show terrorism *might* work given actors' reasonable beliefs, not that it *will*—uncertainty doesn't eliminate justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Comparing terrorism to conventional alternatives (prolonged occupation, repression) may show it produces better outcomes despite absolute ineffectiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Empirical evidence(as a source of justification for knowledge)
    Information or proof based on real-world observation and experience, rather than just theory or reasoning alone.
    Justification (in philosophy)(as in 'epistemic justification')
    The reasons or evidence that make a belief reasonable to hold; what makes a claim count as knowledge rather than just an opinion.
    Predictive certainty(in epistemology)
    The claim that you can know with complete confidence what will happen in the future as a result of an action.
    Presuppose(what both foundationalisms supposedly do)
    To assume or take for granted something as true in order to make an argument work, without proving it first.
    Systematically refutes(in logic and argumentation)
    Consistently and thoroughly proves something wrong through organized evidence or reasoning.
    consequentialism(Applied to terrorism and legal punishment)
    The view that practices are judged solely by their consequences, such that a practice is wrong only if it has bad consequences on balance.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Comparing terrorism to conventional alternatives (prolonged occupation, repressi...Consequentialists need only show terrorism *might* work given actors' reasonable...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Consequentialists require high confidence in outcome predictions, but terrorism'...
    Empirical studies show terrorism rarely achieves stated political objectives and...
    +3 moreShow less
    Historical cases (IRA, ETA, RAF) demonstrate terrorists systematically overestim...Some acts or campaigns of terrorist violence against non-combatants can be justi...Some terrorist campaigns (Algerian FLN, Cuban Revolution) did achieve major poli...