Terrorism and Civil Disobedience

Anybody can bear me witness that, the history of mankind has been nothing short of protests against certain acts that we perceive to be wrong or morally degrading. These protests have resulted to acts of terrorism and civil disobedience which have brought up devastating effects to innocent people. This paper will discuss hybrid law approach to terrorism and provide an understanding of civil disobedience as perceived by Martin Luther King Jr. Thereafter a focus is given to opinions and reasons as to whether terrorism and civil disobedience are morally justified. The paper will also provide the utilitarian and deontological justification of terrorism and relate either of them with Nagels argument.

The second part will discuss positive and negative eugenics and provide examples on the same as provided in the Engineering American Society article on top of highlighting the eugenics social agenda as described in the article. Towards the end of the paper we shall evaluate whether the positive and negative eugenics lead to any form of discrimination. Finally, the paper will discuss the video who should decide and provide the moral issues as depicted from the case in the video.

Terrorism is one subject that has so far not gained globally acceptable definition. This is the case because different jurisdictions have adapted different definitions on the same thus slowing down the process of acquiring a globally and legally acceptable definition of the crime. For the purpose of this paper we shall adopt the definition of terrorism as defined by the FBI. According to the FBI, terrorism refers to the unlawful use of force to coerce a government or a certain segment of the population to act in accordance to your social or political objectives. We can also choose to adopt the definition as per Poland. According to Poland, terrorism is a pre-planned mayhem which is meant to intimidate the innocent by instilling fear into them. By so doing, terrorists are able to influence their audience and fulfill their political and social motives.

Terrorism can manifest itself in different forms. They range from threats, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, bomb scares to cyber attacks. Terrorist attacks are of different types. They range from chemical, mechanical, radiological and biological terrorism (Stevens, 2009). Of interest in this research paper is the biological terrorism which is commonly referred to as bio-terrorism.

The term bio-terrorism is used to refer to the deliberate distribution or release of bacterias, viruses and fungi among others. The probability that a particular biological agent will be used by a terrorist depends on its availability. According to the U.S Centre for disease control and prevention Bacillus anthracis is more available than other agents and thus have a high potential of being used by terrorists. Currently, numerous bio-terrorism acts can be applied by terrorists groups and anyone with an ill-motive. They range from the use of Bacillus anthracis, Clostridium botulinum toxin, Yersinia pestis,Varola major, Francisella tularensis to Burkholderia mallei.

Gradually, we have witnessed the emergence of several groups which seek to justice terrorism. By justifying we mean an act of defining the motive of the terrorist groups. Worth noting is the utilitarian justification of terrorism. This group is of the opinion that racial and ethnic groups have a right to resort to armed struggle whenever they are denied off their equal participation in matters of political and social life. Still we have the deontological justification of terrorism. This justification is based on the Principle of Non-Combatant Immunity (PNI) prohibits the intentional killing of non-combatants. At the same time PNI prohibits counter terrorist activities aimed at killing or causing severe injuries to non-combatants. An argument presented by Nagel seems to be consistent with the utilitarian justification of terrorism. According to Nagel, terrorism is no crime as long as the objective is important enough. He goes ahead to provide example of issues that may justify terrorism. For instance Nagel cites that terrorism is justified when one wants his enemy to withdraw from his territory, be granted independence or to force an enemy to cease hostility. He however cautions that in delivery of such operations care should be taken to minimize the amount of risk that the innocent people are being exposed to.

Of late, there has been concern over how liberal democratic states should respond to the security threats posed terrorism as well as non state political violence. Some of the counter measures include use of military force or prosecution of the criminals after subsequent investigations are conducted. However, the counter measures depend on the group that the state may be dealing with and the extent of their operations. This has consequently led to the hybrid law approach. This approach seeks to prosecute terrorists on charges of murder under the domestic law. The hybrid law approach is applicable irrespective of whether it was the murder of civilians or the military personnel. However, a philosopher by the name of Luban is opposed to the hybrid law approach. According to him the hybrid law approach is based on the relationship that prevails within states, while the war model is based on the relationship that prevails between states. He goes further to assert that the hybrid law approach upholds some community values. On the other hand, he presupposes that the war model has the assumption that mankind do not live in a single community with some ethical principles to be held.

Luban goes further to produce a theoretical objection to the hybrid law approach to terrorism. He states that it is unprincipled to separate and recombine the law and the war model since it is to the interest of the Americans. Finally, Luban asserts that the war on terrorism is not clearly defined. In that, it lacks a defined point of termination. This leads him to the conclusion that the war on terrorism regardless of which model is applicable will only increase the violation of human rights (Gehring, 2003).

Since the issue of terrorism has grown to be an immense one, numerous guidelines about how to deal with the same have emerged incase one is a victim. Of interest in this research paper is the ticking time bomb scenario. The ticking time bomb story goes something like this. A bomb which is about to explode is planted in a hidden locality within an American city. In your custody you have the man responsible for the bomb who would not even say a word of the whereabouts of the bomb. Under such condition the well safeguarded ethical principles should be compromised. In that, the guy should be subjected to torture in order for him to reveal crucial information about the whereabouts of the bomb. This will definitely go a long way towards saving the innocent lives of many. However, Luban is opposed to the whole ticking bomb story. According to Luban the ticking bomb story is not to happen in the near future. In addition, Luban presumes that despite subjecting the suspect to torture it is not guaranteed that he or she may be having the information that is desired by the relevant authorities. The bottom line according to Luban is that torture should not be accepted under any circumstance.

Civil disobedience
According to Rachaels, civil disobedience refers to the refusal of an individual to abide by the law and the government orders without necessarily resorting to any form of physical violence. Generally, it is a non-violent form of resistance from disgruntled individuals. Civil disobedience differs from terrorism because terrorism is normally a violent form of protest to the government as opposed to civil disobedience which is non-violent (Rachels, 2010). He further cites this as the same view given by Martin Luther King, who saw civil disobedience is a form of protest to the government over some unjust laws. He goes further to make a distinction between the just and the unjust laws. To his understanding, an unjust law is normally not in harmony with the moral law. At the same time, an unjust law contradicts eternal and natural law and degrades human personality. On the other hand, just laws are those that are consistent with the law of God and the moral law and uplifts human personality. This leads us to the opinion part of the paper.

In my opinion, terrorism is by no measure justified. In that there is no point of claiming the innocent lives of many for the sole intention of gaining political or social recognition. I can only justify terrorism whenever dialogue between the warring groups has failed. On the other hand, civil disobedience is justified since there is no form of physical violence involved. At the same time, civil disobedience is for the interest of all since it does advocate for the scrapping of the unjust laws and the upholding of the just laws.

Part 2
Moral issues in genetic technologies
Overtime, different technologies concerned with genetics have emerged the human race. Notably, there has been the emergence of Eugenics which applies genetic principles and agricultural breeding in a bid to improve human race. Of interest in this research paper is the positive and negative eugenics. By definition positive eugenics refers to a form of eugenics which advocates for marriage and breeding between two individuals who may be considered desirable. This was evident in the article from the Engineering American Society article where Galton tries to improve the human race through selective breeding. This led to the degeneracy theory which shared the idea that the unfit in the society are products of bad environment and they are responsible for the degenerate off-springs (Micklos, 2000).

On the other hand, we have the negative Eugenics. By negative eugenics we mean the attempt to scrap off the defective germ-plasmas that may be present in the society. This involves the employment of such measures as sexual separation, sterilization, and immigration control and marriage regulation among others. Negative eugenics is depicted from the article where there was an attempt to stop any further spread of faulty genes. This came after studies revealed that over 700 petty criminals, prostitutes and paupers could trace their heredity from Margaret, the mother of criminals. The positive and the negative eugenics paved way for the eugenic social agenda.

The Eugenic social agenda was directed at improving the human race through scientific progress. A large percentage of the middle class citizens shared the opinion that human being was a defective species which was needed some form  of pruning in a bid to maintain its viability. To achieve .the American eugenicists succeeded in lobbying for eugenic social legislation. The social legislation was directed at minimizing the number of immigrants into the European Nations to prevent any further racial mixing. As if the immigration restriction was not enough the eugenicists went further to sterilize those that they viewed to be genetically unfit.

The whole issue of eugenics has brought about some moral issues. It has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the two groups cannot be allowed to freely intermingle. In my opinion, regardless of whether it is positive or negative eugenics, they both lead to discrimination. This is because the poor and the genetically undesirable cannot be freely allowed to choose their breeding partners.

Who should decide
The movie who should decide focuses on the numerous parenting issues that parents have to go through. It features on the lives of Suzie and his brother. The brother to Suzie identifies that a problem exists between them and the parents and he chooses to address them by writing a masterpiece. He writes an open letter to all the so called unappreciated and misunderstood sons and daughters. On a Saturday afternoon, a bunch of Suzie friends are going skating .Suzie had also prepared a nice lunch for her date. Trouble started when Suzies friends came to pick her up with a car. This was however not a big issue since the boys in the car were good drivers. The issue driving Suzies mum crazy was that the driver was actually a no one in the society and Suzies mum was worried of the influence that he would have on her daughter now that they were going over 25 miles from home. The mum was quite reluctant to let her daughter go despite the fact that she had attained the age of consent. Eventually, it was evident that she would not actually let her go. The question at hand is who should decide the kind of friends that your sons and daughters should interact with.

Suzies brother has issues too. His father is doing some paint works in the kitchen and he expects his son to help out. In response, the son asks whether it is acceptable that he gets a painter and he gets to pay him from his own pocket because he dislikes painting. The dad accused him of not being part of the family. The son is however inquisitive about whether he has a right to decide over what kind of work he should be involved in while in the house. He is also unsure whether the dad has a right to decide what he is to do with his life. Things even gets worse on him after he went with his girlfriend fro a movie date. This did not go down well with his father who was expecting him back in the house by 11.00 p.m. However, he feels that since he is old enough he has a right to decide when he comes back to the house. The movie date ended quite early but he deliberately chose to be late just to prove to his dad that he was old enough. When he finally got home he was treated as a public enemy since no one would dare talk to him. In summary, the movie brings out some moral issues. For instance, it brings into right that the kind of friends we interact have some influence on our lives. Finally, it depicts that we as the youth should help out in the household chores.


Post a Comment