1. Introductory When it first entered political discourse, the word “terrorism” was used with ref... more 1. Introductory When it first entered political discourse, the word “terrorism” was used with reference to the reign of terror imposed by the Jacobin regime—that is, to describe a case of state terrorism. Historians of the French Revolution have analyzed and discussed that case in great detail. There are also quite a few historical studies of some other instances of state terrorism, most notably of the period of “the Great Terror” in the Soviet Union. In a contemporary setting, however, state terrorism is apparently much more difficult to discern. Discussions of terrorism in social sciences and philosophy tend to focus on non-state and, more often than not, anti-state terrorism. In common parlance and in the media, terrorism is as a rule assumed to be an activity of non-state agencies in virtue of the very meaning of the word. If one suggests that the army or security services are doing the same thing that, when done by insurgents, are invariably described and condemned as terrorist...
Acknowledgments vi Introduction 1 1 Defining Terrorism 7 2 State Terrorism and Counterterrorism 3... more Acknowledgments vi Introduction 1 1 Defining Terrorism 7 2 State Terrorism and Counterterrorism 30 3 Complicity of the Victims 47 4 The Consequences of Terrorism 65 5 Terrorism, Rights, and Justice 84 6 Terrorism, Supreme Emergency, and Moral Disaster 95 7 Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive? 114 8 Case Study: Terror Bombing of German Cities 126 9 Case Study: Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Confl ict 148 Summing up 170 Notes 176 References and Bibliography 180 Index 189
Ethics and Sex presents a systematic study of the nature and moral significance of human sexualit... more Ethics and Sex presents a systematic study of the nature and moral significance of human sexuality and of the major issues in sexual morality. The book is divided into two main parts. Part One gives a critical analysis of the key conceptions of human sexuality. Part Two discusses the most important issues in sexual morality: monogamy; adultery; prostitution; homosexuality; paedophilia; sexual harassment and rape. In this controversial and accessible book, the author demonstrates that many of the prohibitions that make up conventional sexual morality cannot withstand critical scrutiny.
Utilitarianism, Justice and Punishment: Comments on Smart and Flew
Israel Law Review, 1991
Perhaps the greatest attraction of the utilitarian view of punishment presented so forcefully in ... more Perhaps the greatest attraction of the utilitarian view of punishment presented so forcefully in Smart's paper is its empirical character. This empirical, scientific approach to social and moral problems typical of utilitarianism is made possible by its monistic nature: by its claim to have found in consequences of actions the principle of a uniform interpretation of all the various moral concepts, rules, ideals, a universal moral currency in which all the pros and cons of any moral issue that might arise can be cashed. This moral monism is seen by utilitarians as one of the main advantages of their theory; but it is also a source of some of its most persistent troubles. For whereas some moral notions may lend themselves to utilitarian interpretation, some others seem resistant to it.
May 30, 1992, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 757, imposing comprehensive sanctions on ... more May 30, 1992, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 757, imposing comprehensive sanctions on the "Federal Republic of Yu-goslavia" (=Serbia and Montenegro). The sanctions were the interna-tional community's response to the continued aggression of the rump Yugoslavia, ...
We think of war as a conflict between soldiers, who have been trained, armed, and commanded to fi... more We think of war as a conflict between soldiers, who have been trained, armed, and commanded to fight. Normally, civilians are neither equipped with arms nor trained in their use and sent out to fight. Yet virtually all wars have involved not only military, but also civilian casualties. Civilians have been killed and injured and their property has been destroyed, often on a large scale. Some of this killing and destruction has been accidental, caused by actions of soldiers directed at military targets which, as their unintended, unforeseen, and indeed unforeseeable consequences, bring about harm to civilians. In other cases, the harming of civilians has been incidental: inflicted as an unintended but foreseen side-effect of attacks on military targets. In still other cases, civilians have been deliberately attacked, whether as a way of attaining some war aims or for reasons that have nothing to do with those aims. Keywords: civilians; collateral damage; ethics; just war theory; justice; non-combatants; rights; war
Any plausible position in the ethics of war and political violence in general will include the re... more Any plausible position in the ethics of war and political violence in general will include the requirement of protection of civilians (non-combatants, common citizens) against lethal violence. This requirement is particularly prominent, and particularly strong, in just war theory. Some adherents of the theory see civilian immunity as absolute, not to be overridden in any circumstances whatsoever. Others allow that it may be overridden, but only in extremis. The latter position has been advanced by Michael Walzer under the heading of ''supreme emergency.'' In this paper, I look into some of the issues of interpretation and application of Walzer's ''supreme emergency'' view and some of the criticisms that have been levelled against it. I argue that Walzer's view is vague and unacceptable as it stands, but that the alternatives proposed by critics such as Brian Orend, C.A.J. Coady, and Stephen Nathanson are also unattractive. I go on to construct a position that is structurally similar to Walzer's, but more specific and much less permissive, which I term the ''moral disaster'' view. According to this view, deliberate killing of civilians is almost absolutely wrong. Keywords Civilian immunity Á ''Dirty hands'' problem Á Just war theory Á Moral disaster Á Non-combatant immunity Á Walzer, Michael Á Supreme emergency Á War Philosophers agree that the immunity of civilians (or non-combatants) against deadly violence in war must be the centerpiece of the jus in bello part of any ethics
A number of philosophers and legal scholars have pointed out a fact about punishment that had not... more A number of philosophers and legal scholars have pointed out a fact about punishment that had not been sufficiently appreciated by many traditional accounts, utilitarian, retributive, or ‘mixed’: that evil inflicted on the person punished is not an evilsimpliciter, but rather the expression of an important social message—that punishment is a kind of language. The message which it is seen to communicate can broadly be described as condemnation by society of the crime committed. In what is still the only attempt at a generalandcritical discussion— Anthony Skillen's ‘How to say Things with Walls’—this way of understanding punishment is termed ‘expressionism’. In this paper I propose to sort out the main varieties of expressionism in the philosophy of punishment, and to discuss some of their pros and cons.
I first distinguish patriotism from nationalism. The kind of patriotism that provides the last re... more I first distinguish patriotism from nationalism. The kind of patriotism that provides the last refuge to the scoundrel is put aside as not to the point. I then develop a typology of positions on the moral standing of patriotism that includes (1) extreme patriotism that trumps moral considerations that conflict with it, (2) extreme patriotism understood as the central moral virtue, (3) moderate patriotism, (4) patriotism as a morally indifferent preference, and (5) a distinctively ethical version of patriotism. I argue that (1) is clearly morally unacceptable; concur with the critics of (2) that it, too, must be rejected; agree with the defenders of (3) that it is a distinctive and morally legitimate position, but go on to argue that there is nothing to be said for it, morally speaking, and that it is therefore (4) a morally indifferent preference; finally, I present (5) as a different type of patriotism which, under some fairly common circumstances, may be a moral duty.
... Of course, I am talking of 'innocence' and 'immunity' in a very specific,... more ... Of course, I am talking of 'innocence' and 'immunity' in a very specific, restricted sense: the sense relevant to the question of defining terrorism and distinguishing it from such things as war and political assassina-tion. ... Walter Laqueur objects to this way of defining terrorism: . . . ...
Uploads
Papers by Igor Primoratz