Soldiers differ from political officials as appropriate targets of terrorist attacks because soldiers are considered as combatants driven by the political motives of the officials in charge. Soldiers are considered to be guided by the interests of those in power and their threatening nature compels terrorists to act against them. Therefore, orchestrating attacks on military personnel is considered ethical. On the other hand, despite political officials being considered as the agents of regimes thought to be oppressive (Walzer 7), they are noncombatants hence attacking them is not justifiable. Also, the political code stipulated prevents political officials from being targets of attacks. Conventionally, it is the political official’s interest and actions which drive the gears of war and oppression translating to political unrest. This poses a moral dilemma on the subject matter. In the same light, police officers should not be considered targets of terrorist attacks. This is attributable to the fact that they are carrying out their duties as assigned to them thus not in a position to influence policy. Therefore, attacking them would be regarded as immoral. However, the issue of terrorism continues to raise ethical complications as opinions change with respect to perspective.
Terrorism can be described as the illegal use of indiscriminate violence and intimidation, especially against ordinary citizens, so as to achieve certain political, religious, or ideological agendas. Terrorists aim to create a state of panic in a nation so as to further their interests. Going by the definition put forward, an act of violence against a particular group can only be classified as a terrorist attack if the victims are noncombatants to further a particular political motive. Therefore, it would be considered morally acceptable to a certain extent if the individuals carried out the attack for a just cause such as fighting for their human rights. In this situation, the act can be seen as the only way the voice of the oppressed can be heard. For instance, it would be ethical for Palestinians to carry out terrorist attacks on Israelis soldiers as they have constantly faced mistreatment from the soldiers. This act would be seen as a revolutionary act as political negotiations have continuously failed to resolve the issue. However, the issue still comes out as controversial as there are many dynamics associated with the factor.
Terrorism can be used on behalf of a just cause. Considering Lionel K. McPherson perspective, terrorism is seen as a last resort by agents to advance their political motives (McPherson 544). In a similar context, it can be assumed that the terrorists are well-aware of the of the disaster that their actions spell out for noncombatants but choose to proceed with them as it the only option left. Also, this provides evidence that they recognize the moral significance of the bearing burdens out of respect for the lives of the civilians (McPherson 545). The Marxist ethics support this view of terrorism. This is because Marxists believe that to gain a peaceful society where everyone needs are catered for, carrying out violent activities is acceptable. Further, the believers in this theory recognize that in certain circumstances, such as liberation, violence may be unavoidable (Cahn 314). This virtue directly applies to terrorism as a means to a better end. To finalize, dealing with moral issues and terrorism continues to be a challenging subject. Unless, we all see the world from the same point of view, which is absolutely improbable, ethical perspectives on the issue will continue to differ.
Works Cited
Cahn, Steven M. Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press, 2009.
McPherson, Lionel K. “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?” Ethics, vol. 117, no. 3, 2007, pp. 542-546, 2007.
Walzer, Michael. “Terrorism and Just War.” Philosophia, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3-12, 2006.
