Walzer's 'supreme emergency' doctrine requires near-certain civilizational destruction before overriding non-combatant immunity, a threshold terrorist campaigns virtually never meet.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Non-combatant immunity(as a moral rule that Walzer's doctrine allows overriding in extreme cases): The principle that civilians who aren't fighting (like ordinary people in cities) should be protected from attack, even during war.
Supreme emergency(Referenced as the standard required to justify killing innocent civilians, contrasted with the lower threshold for killing innocent soldiers): An extreme circumstance in which intentionally killing innocent civilians is considered by philosophers to be potentially permissible, representing the highest justificatory threshold for killing in war
Walzer(as a reference to a specific philosopher's work): Michael Walzer is a political philosopher who created an influential framework for thinking about when wars can be morally justified and how they should be fought fairly.
overriding(ethics): So important or powerful that it outweighs or defeats other considerations—in this case, moral rules that are more important than anyone's personal goals.

Based on where you are in your exploration