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
    Within a nonconsequentialist approach to morality, terror... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Within a nonconsequentialist approach to morality, terrorism is considered wrong in itself.

    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
    ?
    • 1.Nonconsequentialism judges acts by what they are rather than solely by their consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Terrorism, by what it is, qualifies as wrong under nonconsequentialist evaluation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nonconsequentialist frameworks like just war theory judge acts by their specific features, yet historically permit targeting non-combatants under supreme emergency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Walzer's 'supreme emergency' doctrine shows even deontological traditions allow intentional civilian harm when civilizational stakes are sufficiently catastrophic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If established nonconsequentialist frameworks permit paradigmatic terrorist acts under extreme conditions, terrorism cannot be wrong 'in itself' within those frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The wrongness of an act 'in itself' requires a stable, non-contested description of what that act essentially is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philosophers including Coady and Primoratz dispute whether 'terrorism' is defined by targeting civilians, by political intent, or by terror-production, yielding no unified act-type.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a determinate act-type, nonconsequentialism cannot issue a verdict that terrorism as such is intrinsically wrong, only that specific instantiations may be.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Moral Responsibility2 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    If established nonconsequentialist frameworks permit paradigmatic terrorist acts...Nonconsequentialism judges acts by what they are rather than solely by their con...Nonconsequentialist frameworks like just war theory judge acts by their specific...Philosophers including Coady and Primoratz dispute whether 'terrorism' is define...
    +4 moreShow less
    Terrorism, by what it is, qualifies as wrong under nonconsequentialist evaluatio...The wrongness of an act 'in itself' requires a stable, non-contested description...Walzer's 'supreme emergency' doctrine shows even deontological traditions allow ...

    Similar

    Under consequentialism, the innocence of terrorism's victims does not ...86%Standard consequentialist assessments of terrorism are too permissive.81%There must be nonconsequentialist constraining principles that do not ...78%Terrorism, by what it is, qualifies as wrong under nonconsequentialist...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: terrorism
    View source passageHide passage
    Within a nonconsequentialist approach to morality, terrorism is considered wrong in itself, because of what it is, rather than only because (and insofar as) its consequences are bad on balance. But this is not to say that this approach leaves no room whatever for morally justifying certain acts or campaigns of terrorism. Indeed, nonconsequentialist discussions of terrorism also present a range of positions and arguments.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Without a determinate act-type, nonconsequentialism cannot issue a verdict that ...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit