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
    Some acts or campaigns of terrorist violence against non-... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The victims, though non-combatants or common citizens, are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorists are fighting against
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Collective moral responsibility cannot be transferred to individuals who lack direct causal agency over institutional wrongs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-combatants in a democracy who vote for unjust policies remain categorically distinct from combatants who execute them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating partial civic complicity as equivalent to forfeited immunity collapses the combatant/non-combatant distinction entirely, making all wars limitless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Walzer's 'supreme emergency' doctrine requires near-certain civilizational destruction before overriding non-combatant immunity, a threshold terrorist campaigns virtually never meet.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      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.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Collective moral responsibility cannot be transferred to individuals who lack di...Consequentialist justifications for terrorism presuppose a predictive certainty ...Non-combatants in a democracy who vote for unjust policies remain categorically ...The victims, though non-combatants or common citizens, are not innocent of the w...
    +2 moreShow less
    Treating partial civic complicity as equivalent to forfeited immunity collapses ...Walzer's 'supreme emergency' doctrine requires near-certain civilizational destr...

    Similar

    Some acts or campaigns of terrorist violence against innocent victims ...95%To justify a terrorist act or campaign instrumentally, one must show t...83%Arguments that justify terrorist violence by denying the innocence of ...80%The victims, though non-combatants or common citizens, are not innocen...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: terrorism
    View source passageHide passage
    One might try to justify some acts or campaigns of violence of this kind in two ways. One could argue that the victims may be non-combatants or common citizens, but nevertheless are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorists are fighting against. Alternatively, one could concede the innocence of the victims and argue that attacks on them are nevertheless justified, either by their consequences on balance, or by some deontological considerations.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit