CHAPTER 19 Political Violence: War, Terrorism, and Torture
CHAPTER OUTLINE
I. Background and Facts about War, Terrorism, and Torture
A. Political Violence
B. The Meaning of Violence
C. Violence: Prima Facie Wrong?
D. Violence: A Violation of People’s Rights
E. Realism
F. Pacifism
G. Just War Theory
1. The Justice of War
2. Justice in War
3. Requirements of Just War
H. Terrorism
1. Defining Terrorism
2. Moral Questions Related to Terrorism
I. Torture
1. Defining Torture
2. Moral Questions Related to Torture
II. Moral Theories and War, Terrorism, and Torture
A. Consequentialism and War
1. Antiwar Pacifism
2. Utilitarian Just War Theory
B. Moral Approaches to Treatment of Noncombatants
1. Consequentialist Approach
2. Nonconsequentialist Approach
C. Moral Approaches to Terrorism
1. Consequentialist Approach
2. Nonconsequentialist Approach
D. Moral Approaches to Torture
1. Consequentialist Approach
2. Nonconsequentialist Approach
III. Moral Arguments about War, Terrorism, and Torture
A. Humanitarian Intervention
B. Is Terrorism Ever Morally Permissible?
C. Ticking-Bomb Scenario for the Permissibility of Torture
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. A plausible nonconsequentialist argument for pacifism is
a. war is always wrong because in the deliberate killing of human beings it violates a fundamental right—the right to life.
b. war is never justified, because it always produces more bad than good. The catastrophic loss of life and the widespread
destruction of war can never offset whatever political
or material gains are achieved; riches, land, oil, or power cannot outweigh the carnage.
c. war inevitably leads to more war, and multiple wars can never outweigh the good that might come out of so many conflicts.
d. the loss of even one life in a war is so catastrophically bad that no amount of good resulting from the war could counterbalance it.
2. Eminent realists of the past and present include
a. Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Henry Kissinger.
b. Henry Kissinger, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Jimmy Carter.
c. Reinhold Niebuhr, Thomas Hobbes, and Barack Obama.
d. Niccolò Machiavelli, George W. Bush, and Henry Kissinger.
3. In just war theory, the justification for resorting to war has traditionally been labeled
a. jus in bello. c. justice of conflict.
b. just cause principle. d. jus ad bellum.
4. Suppose state A launches an unprovoked attack on state B. According to the usual
interpretation of just war theory, state B has just cause for going to war against state
A—namely
a. revenge. c. expectation of success.
b. self-defense against attack. d. profits in war.
5. People who should not be intentionally attacked in war are said to have
a. war immunity. c. noncombatant immunity.
b. state protection. d. special status.
6. The term used to refer to the issue of what acts are morally permissible in war is ________.
a. jus in bello. c. ad hoc jus.
b. jus ad bellum. d. jus ad majorum.
7. Suppose the Iraq War, which began in 2003 when the United States and its allies attacked
Iraq, started because President George W. Bush and his advisors feared that Saddam Hussein
might be dangerous. And suppose at that time there was no evidence that Iraq was an
immediate and imminent threat—that is, there was no evidence that Iraq had nearly completed
plans to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. If these were the facts,
most just war theorists would probably have judged the attack by the United States to be
a. preemptive. c. unjustified.
b. justified. d. prudent.
8. Suppose that terrorism is defined broadly as the deliberate use of violence against
noncombatants for political or ideological purposes. In this case the Allied bombings of
Dresden and other German cities in World War II and the atomic obliteration of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki would be considered
a. acts of war. c. terrorist acts.
b. nonterrorist acts. d. unclassifiable actions.
9. The leading contemporary advocate for just war theory, Michael Walzer, asserts that
terrorism is wrong because
a. terrorists always act from dubious motives.
b. it is an indiscriminate attack on the innocent.
c. terrorist attacks are directed at specific persons for particular reasons.
d. it is perpetrated by nonstate actors.
10. Suppose you took a Kantian means-ends view of torture. You then would likely judge
torture to be
a. morally permissible. c. neither right nor wrong.
b. morally impermissible. d. permissible to save lives.
11. Suppose you are a utilitarian, and suppose it is an empirical fact that wars invariably have
more bad consequences than good. To be consistent, you then would have to accept the view
known as
a. personal pacifism. c. realism.
b. just war pacifism. d. antiwar pacifism.
12. In 2014 President Barack Obama claimed that the United States should intervene in an attack
on the Yezidi people in Iraq by ISIS in order to prevent genocide. An interventionist might
argue that the United States was justified in such an attack, just as a bystander would be
permitted to intervene if they were to see an innocent person being threatened. Which of the
following would be the best response that the noninterventionist could give to the
interventionist argument?
a. There is a well-established doctrine of international conduct that one sovereign state may not meddle in the internal affairs of
another.
b. Just as a bystander must ask for help in order to justify intervention, the Yezidi people must also ask for help, which they cannot
do.
c. A leader of government may not make decisions that will put soldiers in danger, simply for the sake of preventing genocide.
d. Preventing genocide is not a legitimate reason for any nation to engage in aggression.
13. Consider the “ticking–bomb” scenario, which is used to justify using torture to fight terrorism.
Some who are opposed to torture believe that ticking-bomb scenarios are too contrived to be
taken seriously; such states of affairs simply don’t happen in the real world. A plausible
counterargument to this position is that
a. ticking-bomb situations happen all the time.
b. ticking-bomb situations have often been depicted in movies and TV series.
c. in light of what we know about the upbringing of many convicted terrorists, we have good reasons to believe that ticking-bomb
situations are possible.
d. in light of what we know about terrorist tactics and aims (and about police cases that resemble ticking-bomb scenarios), we have
good reasons to believe that ticking-bomb situations are possible.
TRUE/FALSE
1. Most people believe that violence is prima facie wrong.
2. The view that war is never morally permissible is known as jus in bello.
3. A war launched because an attack from another state is not actual but merely feared is
known as a preventive war.
4. In war the distinction between combatants and noncombatants is unambiguous and very clear
to troops on the ground.
5. Suppose you are an immunity theorist, and you hear that an attack by American soldiers on a
group of twenty ruthless terrorists has resulted in the deaths not only of the terrorists but also
of one noncombatant woman. Later it becomes known that the American soldiers knew the
noncombatant was among the terrorists and launched the attack nevertheless. As an immunity
theorist you would judge this action to be justified but regrettable.
SHORT ANSWER
1. The resort to violence for political ends is referred to as ________.
2. As defined in the text, the term ________ refers to the physical or psychological attack on,
or the vigorous abuse of, persons, causing their suffering, injury, or death.
3. ________ is the view that moral standards are not applicable to war and that war must be
judged only on how well it serves state interests.
4. The doctrine that war may be morally permissible under stipulated conditions is known as ________.
5. According to the text, ________ is violence against noncombatants for political, religious,
or ideological ends.
6. One of the ways that people have tried to avoid concluding that the Allied forces’ bombing of
cities in World War II was terrorism is to limit terrorism only to ________; that is, to
individuals or groups that are not sovereign states.
7. ________ is the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or
intimidate them or to extract information from them.