In his talk, Glasgow notes that, "We single out acts of terrorism for being particularly odious. But why should we do this?" His presentation explores various answers to this question.
We single out acts of terrorism for being particularly odious. But why should we do this? Is there something that makes terrorism morally different from other acts of violence and destruction?
In recent years, prominent philosophers have defended a variety of answers to this question: that we are incorrect to think that there is anything distinctive about terrorism, that terrorism is uniquely wrong because it aims to destabilize the social order, that it is wrong to use fear for socio-political purposes, that it is is wrong because it corrodes international relations, and so on.
In this talk, I argue that these accounts are inadequate. Instead, I favor a more straightforward analysis of terrorism: it is distinctively wrong because it aims to cause widespread fear amongst its 'secondary' victims.
For more information on the Arts and Humanities Research and Creative Works Forum, visit the website at www.sonoma.edu/a_h/AHForum.htm.