Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Some acts or campaigns of terrorist violence against non-combatants can be justified
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Collective moral responsibility cannot be transferred to individuals who lack direct causal agency over institutional wrongs.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
The victims, though non-combatants or common citizens, are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorists are fighting against
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.