Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong Summary

Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong 911, the Paris Bombing, Mumbai Train Bombings, and the Oklahoma City Bombing were all horrific acts of terrorism. The common view when it comes to terrorism, is that it is entirely and utterly wrong. Not many would choose to argue against this. The philosopher Lionel K. McPherson however, argues that terrorism is not distinctively wrong. He argues that terrorism and war are similar and because of that they should be criticized equally. Even though I agree with some of his claims, I disagree with McPhersons conclusion. I will begin this essay by summarizing McPherson’s argument and then I will generate my own argument explaining why McPherson’s conclusion is incorrect. To begin McPherson’s argument, he starts by discussing a set of meetings called the Geneva Conventions. These conventions set out rules to be followed during war. Those rules are; No intentional violence against non-combatants, Proportionality, No weapons mala in se (evil in themselves), and Humane treatment of Prisoners of war. McPherson then explains how terrorism violates all of these rules. He wants to also argue that all of these rules are violated in times of war. McPherson then goes on to explain how each of these rules are often violated during war. Another concept
He brings up the observation that terrorism most of the time is not backed by representative authority. Terrorist say they are acting for a group, but this group does not approve. While this is clear and evident, it brings up questions. Is a government backed by the country it represents. I would say yes. Even though not everyone agrees with the government's choices as a country we voted these officials into office to make decisions for us. This is unlike terrorism, because terrorist are not voted or chosen to represent a group. They make decisions that they feel is right, but not what the group they believe they are representing would