Terrorism is justified if it eliminates more evil than it causes

The argument

The consequentialist theory of ethics argues that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act. Classic utilitarianism held "act consequentialism" -the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good. Under this ethical framework, terrorism is morally right if its consequences bring more good than bad. Terrorism is considered wrong only if it has bad consequences on balance. The innocence of the victims does not change that. Historical evidence shows that terrorism employed in conjunction with guerilla warfare in a war of liberation can well prove useful as it did in Algeria and South Vietnam. In these cases, terrorism can be justified since it served as an effective tactic to drive out an oppressor. Some consequentialists emphasize that terrorists tend not to take the need for moral justification seriously enough and that it is very difficult to satisfy the requirements of its consequentialist justification. One must show that the desired objective, when it is eventually achieved, will indeed be so valuable as to justify all that the terrorist does on the way of achieving it. Additionally, the objective needs to be not possibly achieved by other, less problematic methods. Overall, terrorism is justified if the benefits of its consequences are greater than its costs during the process.

Premises

Counter-arguments

One problem of the argument is that the “higher good” promoted by terrorism is more often than not defined in ideological terms rather than from settled preferences or interests of actual people. For example, if the result of terrorism is the administration of Islamic law in a country, those with an Islamic ideology would consider the consequence as good contrary to others who would deem this consequence as bad because it restricts the freedom and liberty of people. Additionally, consequentialism requires the treatment of victims as objects to be used by terrorists. As Arthur Koestler once wrote, “twice two are not four when the mathematical units are human beings.” The arithmetic calculation of net benefits by consequentialists disregards this fact. Every human being is an individual, a person separate from other persons with a unique value that is not commensurable with anything else. In this sense, terrorism is never justified.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise assumes act consequentialism rather than defending it, and states its most contested implication as though it were a finding: that the innocence of victims makes no difference is precisely what most moral theories deny. It also meets the objection the counter presses — aggregating harms across people treats individuals as quantities, when the loss falls on separate persons who are not compensated by benefits accruing to others. [Rejecting P2] The historical cases do not establish what the premise needs. That a campaign preceded a political outcome does not show the outcome required it, since decolonisation proceeded in many places without it, and the ledger is drawn only over the successes — the far more numerous campaigns that produced repression and no political gain go uncounted. The premise's own concession is then fatal to the conclusion: if the justification requires showing in advance that the objective will prove valuable enough and that no less harmful means exists, it is unavailable at the moment of acting, which is when a justification is needed.