Ethics of War and Terrorism
Ethics of War and Terrorism
Write a paper of (approximately) five double-spaced, typewritten pages on the articles, “Terrorism,” by R. G. Frey and Christopher W. Morris, and “On the Morality of War,” by Richard A. Wasserstrom. These are found in your text.
I expect roughly two-thirds of your essay to be an exposition. That is, summarize the articles’ content and themes. Your grade will be determined in part by how well you emphasize the major points and ignore the less relevant material.
The remaining one-third should be devoted to a critical analysis. Present your own arguments in favor of or against any issue raised by any of the authors. However, be sure to support your stands with solid reasoning. It is easy to get overly emotional about terrorism and war, but the philosopher has the intellectual responsibility to avoid mere expression of opinion.
You may wish to consider the following, often interrelated questions in your evaluation. These are intended to get you thinking about the issues raised in the articles; it isn’t mandatory that you answer them.
Is pacifism—the rejection of all forms of violence—a reasonable position? What exactly is terrorism, and is it ever acceptable? Would youconsider any of the violence generated by the deaths of Black people at the hands of the police terrorist in nature? How about the deaths of such individuals themselves? Who exactly are innocent persons and is inflicting harm on them ever right? Do the ends ever justify the means, as so-called consequentialists maintain? On the other hand, is there a prohibition against violating anyone’s right to life, as the so-called natural
law and Kantian theorists maintain? What is the proper moral response to terrorism? What exactly is the “national interest,” and should this alone, and not morality, determine whether wars should be fought? Was President Truman’s defense for dropping atomic bombs on Japan at the close of World War II correct, the claim that doing so “saved thousands and thousands of young Americans (emphasis added)”? Are nationstates immune from moral assessment? Why or why not? What might be ethically appealing “laws of war”? Which are more compelling,
forward-looking or backward-looking justifications for war?
Your grade will be based on your summary of the articles, the quality of your arguments, as well as style, spelling, and grammar. Some words of warning. Do not quote excessively, and when you do quote, indicate the page numbers parenthetically. Express the views of the authors in your own words. I shall not look kindly on near verbatim paraphrasing. Nor shall I at all tolerate plagiarism (“the appropriation or imitation of the language, ideas, and thoughts of another author, and representations of them as one’s original work,” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition; “another author” would include a fellow student, acquaintance, or Internet source). If you choose to mention the positions of other thinkers, something that you aren’t required to do, footnote the relevant references.
Organize you paper coherently, although it is not necessary to separate the exposition from the evaluation if stylistic continuity is preserved. I shall be happy to look over any less-than-final drafts and make suggestions for improvements if they are warranted, but don’t wait until the week before they are due to hand them in.
Several weeks after your paper is graded and turned back, you will submit a revised version, taking into consideration my written comments (due date to be announced). Your original must accompany the rewritten one so don’t lose it. Your final paper grade will be the average of the two marks assigned. Failure to turn in either work will result in an automatic F for the course. (my profs exact words)
