PHIL140 Exam 1 Study Guide 6 Pages What is terrorism? • Broadly defined terrorism is political violence • Narrowly defined terrorism is the use of arbitrary violence toward non-combatants (innocents) in order to terrorize a larger group, and this terrorizing is used to affect others (with power?) in order to achieve short of long term goals There are different victims of terrorism: the direct victims who are harmed, the people who are terrorized, and the people whose interests are affected Terrorism is usually or often wrong because there are other means of addressing and reaching the terrorists goals that have lesser costs • Terrorism may be wrong because of the right of the innocents not to be killed (the right to life) The most successful terrorist acts have been those that have obtained the release of fellow terrorists from imprisonment (however, this may or may not be a major victory for the cause). Generally, the most successful forms of terrorism are those used by powerful governments as a method to pressure political opponents – these methods are NOT moral Some explanations used for terrorism: • The ends justify the means: aka if our ends are reached, any effective means are acceptable, because our ends are good o Doesn’t seem true when the means are so costly in human life o Also, the people who suggest this tend to be universalistic and thus consider ends good only if they are good for the general population (i.e. the total good outweighs the total bad) and in most cases, terrorism is only good for a small select group and is bad for a larger more general group and thus is bad overall, so the means are not justified • In war, anything goes. Since war is an extreme circumstance, the normal moral rules do not apply, so terrorism is not wrong. Is this plausible? It seems plausible, but it is not applicably because it is not often used by terrorists because they believe that their goals are (religiously) justifiable • *******they do the same to us – what are the implications, how can I elaborate on this one?o Note that the terrorists are not usually targeting the “they” but rather noncombatants who have done no harm • There are no innocents: the victims are not in fact innocent and thus it is not wrong to kill them, and in fact, the acts are not terrorist acts It seems that terrorism is never permissible because there are no cases in which the justifications make sense, except perhaps the justification about the innocents, but if the people were truly not innocent, then the act was not a terrorist act, but rather an act of war Singer’s Paper: • Purpose: to argue that our moral mentality is wrong and that we ought not to draw the line of charity where we currently draw it, but rather that we have a great duty to hep • First assumption: dying/suffering because of famine, medical lack or other extenuating circumstances is bad o Generally true, doesn’t need defense • Thesis/second assumption: o Strong: it is your duty to prevent something bad from happening if you can do so without giving up something of comparable moral importance o Weak: it is your duty to prevent something VERY bad from happening if you can do so without giving up something of moral SIGNIFICANCE • Pond example: if you walk by a shallow pond and there is a child drowning in the pond you ought to save the child (even if it ruins your very nice shoes). Thus, if there are people dying from starvation you ought to save them (even if it means that you cannot afford to buy a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes). This is because your distance from those in need of assistance does not matter (it is only a minor inconvenience, and now due to technology and the global village – it really is not different from saving someone next to you). • Distance (see above). • Numbers: does it matter how many people have the ability to assist? (only psychologically, not morally) Generally, no, becausenot everyone will do what they ought to do, so you will still have a duty to do what you ought. It might matter only in determining how much you ought to give, but if you give as much as you should (aka as much as you can without sacrificing something morally SIGNIFICANT) then it does not matter how much others give. • If you have practical issues with giving money for famine relief, then you ought to be taking action in some way, whether it is being politically active or donating to population control or etc. • Killing v. letting die o Killing is intentionally and actively ending another’s life o Letting die is failing to rescue someone and thus, perhaps, contributing to the end of their life o Singer thinks that these are morally equivalent • Charity o We currently consider helping those in need charity – a good thing but not a bad thing if we don’t do it and not a requirement – something that is over and above the call of duty o Singer argues that what we call charity is a duty and that we ought to redraw the line between charity and duty What is death? • Death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence (person) • Death v. dying o Death is a state, dying is an experience  You can fear dying because it may be unpleasant or painful, this is different than fearing the state of being dead • Death of the person v. death of the body: relationship o You and your body could die at the same time o Your person could die before your body (say if you are in a permanent coma) o Your body could die before your person (or your person could never die) – this is the concept of immortality  Immortality is significant because the death of the body is a much lesser harm than the death of the person, sokilling of the body might not be as significant a harm if you believe in immortality (and thus that the death of the body does not lead to the death of the person) Why is death bad? • Because it is a loss of life, one of the greatest losses that can happen Epicurus puzzle: • Why are we so worried about not existing after life when we are not worried about not existing before birth? • Note that the dead person never minds being dead, so is death really a bad thing? Why is killing wrong? • Welfare account: killing someone is a harm to them because taking away life is one of the greatest harms you can do to someone • Freedom/autonomy account: killing someone takes away their choice to live/killing against someone’s will does