Phil101 Notes February 13, 2007

RESPONSIBILITY AND PUNISHMENT Overview
1. Clarifies responsibility as a necessary and sufficient condition of punishment 2. Challenges standard interpretation of various theories of punishment, defending a new version of

retributivism Re-defines “desert” as responsibility and proportionality Provides 1st set of principles of proportional punishment for retributivism Argues that any plausible theory of punishment must be retributivist in some basic sense Analyzes the nature of forgiveness and mercy in terms of a perpetrator-centered concept of an apology 7. Develops new analyses of collective responsibility, applying it to corporations and other businesses guilty of wrongdoing
3. 4. 5. 6.

CHAPTERS 1-2 THE PROBLEM OF PUNISHMENT AND PROBLEM OF RESPONSIBILITY Desired Features of a Theory of Responsibility o The theory has a PURPOSE o Theories set forth and defend conditions UNDER WHICH A PERSON IS RIGHTLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE o Theory explains different USES AND SENSES OF RESPONSIBILITY o Theory respects the distinction between MORAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

USES OF “RESPONSIBILITY”
• • • • • •

DUTY: answerable to an obligation CAUSAL: the result of what one does PRAISE: accountability for good actions BLAME: accountability for bad actions LIABILITY: appropriate candidate for punishment for wrong-doing CONTEXT OF RESPONSIBILITY: o LEGAL: judged responsible according to rules of legal system o MORAL: when reason entails that someone is rightly deemed accountable for praise/blame for an act, failure to act, or attempted act

CONDITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The person is guilty. (Causal Condition) The person caused the harm/committed the wrongful act intentionally. (Intentionality Condition) The person performed the act voluntarily. (Voluntariness Condition) The person performed the act knowingly. (Epistemic Condition) The person was at fault in performing the act. (Fault Condition)

EACH CONDITION OF RESPONSIBILTY ADMITS OF DEGREES: in order to be responsible, one must satisfy ALL 5 CONDITIONS. The stronger the conditions are satisfied, the stronger the crime. RESPONSIBILITY AND MORAL LUCK -

-

-

either good/bad, or both combined Moral luck => the extent to which factors beyond our control effect our lives and mitigate or excuse our responsibility for harmful outcomes, or our praiseworthiness for good outcomes. Ex: inheritance Bad Moral Luck => lack of good education often beyond one’s control because born into poverty, but effects life prospects and increases likelihood of crime. Ex: PU’s not educated and don’t stress importance of it to kids; kids grow up in cycle of poverty and ignorance Good Moral Luck => decisions beyond one’s control can assist them in life. Ex: redistricting Ontario high school boundaries

PHIL 101 Notes – February 20th

Responsibility and Voluntariness • Metaphysical libertarianism: All human actions are totally voluntary, uncaused. We are fully responsible for what we do. • Hard determinism: No human actions are uncaused or voluntary. • Compatiblism (Soft determinism): Some human actions are to some extent caused, but are to some extent uncaused or voluntary. We are to some degree responsible for some of what we do. • “Human freedom requires the ability to do otherwise.” – Aristotle

Scope of Responsibility Principle “To the degree that I am responsible for an action, X, and to the degree that a reasonable person can understand, by way of common sense reflection, that X is likely to cause or lead to a certain result Y, I am also responsible for Y.”

Desiderata of a Theory of Punishment 1. That it defines punishment. 2. That it reflects the distinction between the justification of the institution of punishment and the justification of particular ways of punishing offenders. 3. That it concerns itself with matters of corrective justice. 4. That it set forth the conditions under which a person qualifies as a punishable agent. 5. That it’s applicable in a reasonably just legal system. 6. That it explains what are appropriate punishments for various crimes.

Theories of Punishment ASSIGNMENT: Chapters 4, 5, 6 (ties into this slide and lecture)
1. Punishment abolitionism: the institution of punishment is never morally justified. 2. Utilitarianism: the institution of punishment and particular forms of punishment

are morally justified to the extent that they result in the greatest good for society as a whole, either through deterrents of further crimes and/or by way of rehabilitation of criminals. 3. Retributivism: the institution of punishment and particular forms of punishment are morally justified to the extent that offenders deserve to be punished in proportion to the harms they cause to others.

[Side notes: Retr. seen as “red neck view,” but is required because util. is flawed. Also, know which philosophers hold each of these views for exam.]

Definition of Punishment SEE PAGE 38 FOR DEFINTION, AND ADD “Hard Treatment”

Vigilantism is not punishment, it fails to qualify as being imposed by a legal authority. Vigilantism is wrong because it violates basic human right (due process of law).

[Ex. Alphonso the Great story.]

Justification, Mitigation, and Excuse • Justification: when what one does is not legally prohibited. • Mitigation: when the punishment for what one does wrongfully is reduced due to circumstances beyond one’s control. • Excuse: when punishment for what one does wrongfully is cancelled due to circumstances totally or nearly totally beyond one’s control.

[Side notes: Most cases involve some level of mitigation because of voluntariness.]

Do the Punished Always Deserve It? [Ex. Ms. Southwick’s got Badonkadonk story. Videos of pbs.org “Burden of Innocence.”] •
• •

Sometimes innocent persons are convicted and punished. Why is punishment of innocents wrong? They don’t deserve it. What ought to be done about the punishment of innocents? Punishment for negligence. Punishment of law enforcement officers, attorneys, judges, jurors and others who wrongfully convict innocents out of negligence.

Foundations of a Kantian Retributivism – Chapter 3 Overview • Kant’s view of punishment. • Foundations of a Kantian theory of punishment. • I missed this bullet .

Kant on the Nature of Punishment • Punishment is a Categorical Imperative. • The state has a right and perfect duty to punish legal offenders. It is never morally justified to not punish those who deserve it. • Only the guilt deserve to be punished. (And the guilty MUST be punished.) [Corlett disagrees in the cases of strained economic resources.] • Punishment respects autonomous choice of offender. Assumes responsibility. • To respect offender is to punish her. To not punish her is to disrespect her. Justification of Punishment For Kant, the justification of both the institution of punishment and of particular forms of punishment is expressed primarily in terms of desert, but secondarily in terms of social utility considerations.

Kant on Legal Responsibility Roughly, Kant agrees to the conditions of moral responsibility outlined previously. Guilt, intentionality, voluntariness, knowledge, and fault.

They must be satisfied strongly for a person to rightly be held accountable for a wrong doing and punished harshly.

Kant and Proportional Punishment Offenders are to be punished approximately according to the harm that they have wrongly caused to others. Not a strict “eye for an eye” view. Punishment must respect offenders “intrinsic moral worth” – cannot reduce her humanity. No torture or other inhumane punishments, as they “vilify” the state.

Concerns with Kant’s Retributivism • Capital punishment and “humanity as an end.” Kant’s ethics entails a version of the Categorical Imperative which requires that we always treat persons as ends in themselves, never as mere means to an end. Does not capital punishment violate this imperative? • The perfect duty to punish and the sovereigns’ right to pardon – a contradiction? Why not give up the right to pardon all together?

Assessing Retributivism – Chapters 4-6 PG 71 – Redefining “retributivism.”

Defending Retributivism – Preliminary Remarks • Different from Kant’s Retributivism o No perfect duty to punish  “Some crimes not worth punishing.” – Joel Feinberg

Defending Retributivism / Concerns with Proportional Punishment • Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution • “Inhumaneness Principle of Proportional Punishment” o Punishment can never be so severe as to be inhumane. • Problem: Vagueness in Inhumane Principle • What about capital punishment? Is it inhumane or not? Arguments Against Capital Punishment 1. CP applied in racist and sexist ways and thus is administered unfairly. (Unfairness Argument) 2. CP costs too much to keep offenders on death row. (Economic Argument)

PHIL 101 NOTES – MARCH 6TH
PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT
Restrictive Principle: it guards against a criminal’s not being adequately punished. An offender’s suffering from punishment must both adequately compensate the victim (or surviving family) as much as possible and negate the economic, social, etc., advantages the offender gained by committing the crime.

PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT
Historical Principle of Proportional Punishment: a criminal’s history should not be seen as relevant to her sentencing, assuming that the criminal has been properly punished for past crimes.

PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT
Principle of Equality in Proportional Punishment: the type, mode or amount of punishment inflicted on an offender must never be contingent on the offender’s actual or perceived ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious or political affiliation, etc.

DEFENDING RETRIBUTIVISM: THE CONCEPT OF DESERT
Responsibility: a criminal ought to be punished to the extent that she harms others wrongly, intentionally, voluntarily, knowingly, etc. Proportionality: criminals ought to be punished in (approximate) proportion to the harms for which they are responsible. The punishment must fit the crime, however inexactly. Forgiveness, mercy, and –

TWO KINDS OF FORGIVENESS
Attitude Forgiveness: a change of hateful or resentful attitude a person has when she no longer harbors resentment toward a person who has harmed them unjustly. Action Forgiveness: a change of hateful –

FORGIVENESS AND APOLOGY: 2 VIEWS
Victim-Centered Conception of Forgiveness: the victim of the wrongdoing has the moral duty to forgive her offender, regardless of whether the offender apologizes. This is against the view that an apology is a necessary condition for forgiveness. Offender-Center Conception of Forgiveness: the victim has no moral duty whatsoever to forgive her offender, even if the offender apologizes. Forgiveness requires an apology by the offender to her victim(s).

GENUINE APOLOGY
See page 119-120. There is no room for forgiveness and mercy in retributivism, except as a moral prerogative of the victim. There is no moral obligation to forgive under any circumstance.

PUNISHMENT INCLUSIONISM AND EXCLUSIONISM
Punishment Inclusionism (Duff): punishment ought to treat wrongdoers as non-alienated members of society. Punishment Exclusionism: wrongdoers ought to be punished as outcasts from society. Hybrid Model of Punishment Inclusionism/Exclusionism (Corlett): depending on the circumstances of criminal justice, offenders should be punished in ways that include and/or exclude them from society.

CASE STUDY: U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ
Necessary Conditions of a morally just war: a) Must have a just cause. b) Must be declared by a proper authority. c) Must possess right intention to go to war. d) Must have a reasonable chance of success in waging the war. e) The end of war must be proportional to the means used.

MORALLY WRONGFUL INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
It fails to satisfy just cause condition: • • No WMD’s to pose immediate threat. No link to terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It fails to satisfy the right intention condition: • • U.S. wanted Iraq’s OIL! [can be proven wrong by giving control of oil away] Texas-style vendetta: Bush v. Hussein.

Fails to satisfy proportionality condition: 1. Bloody war to install democracy; to remove Hussein? Therefore, the U.S. terrorist invasion of Iraq is morally WRONG as some of us have said for months before the invasion (Carter, Chomsky, Corlett, millions of protestors).

WRONGFUL HARMS TO IRAQIS: DAMAGES
Deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (300-700 thousand).

Serious physical and psychological wounds to living Iraqis. [“shock and awe”] Destruction of Iraqi culture and infrastructure. Theft of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserve.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVASION OF IRAQ
President Bush declared and continues it! VP Cheney’s constant support. Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s constant support. Secretary of State Rice’s constant support. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Powell’s “evidence” for the invasion. [prior, not current] Most of U.S. Congress supported invasion. Haliburton and some other powerful businesses support and profit from invasion. U.S.-based media supported invasion, never opposed it until now. Most U.S. citizens supported invasion, based on media reports. All done in face of most of the world’s strong to moderate non-support of invasion.

PUNISHING WAR CRIMINALS FOR THE UNJUST INVASION OF IRAQ
Immediate impeachment of Bush and cabinet. How ought they to be punished if found guilty of the war crimes in question? Recall Scope of Responsibility Principle, Harm-Based, and Punishment-inKind, and other principles of proportional punishment. [imprisonment or capital punishment suggested] Immediate impeachment of all senators and representatives who voted in support the invasion. How ought they to be punished? Top executives of Haliburton and the other business involved in the invasion placed on trial. How ought they to be punished if found guilty of profiting from and supporting the invasion? All to be tried in International Criminal Court or an International War Crimes Tribunal, with binding decisions and no U.S. interference. Possible sentences: seizure of all personal assets, capital punishment, torture, life in prison without parole or visitation. U.S. military: strongly responsible for U.S. invasion and occupation? Or just pawns in the govt’s game? Military leadership vs. soldiers? What about the corporations and U.S. citizens who supported the invasion-many of whom still do? How ought their responsibility to be punished?

CHAPTER 7: COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
For the Principle of Collective Responsibility, see page 148.

[know this: these conditions of collective responsibility are completely congruent with the five conditions in chapter one]

CHAPTER 8: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND PUNISHMENT
Conditions of Corporate Responsibility • • • • Corporate Intentionality Corporate Voluntariness Corporate Knowledge Corporate Guilt and Fault

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVASION OF IRAQ
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by U.S. troops. Iraqi culture destroyed by U.S. troops. Surviving Iraqis physically and psychologically wounded and require health care. Iraqi oil stolen U.S.! Reparations (fine) to Iraq of 1% of each working U.S. citizen’s gross annual income, until all U.S. damages to Iraq paid! This is proportional compensation. U.S. citizens owe to Iraq for our unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq (almost 1,000,000 Iraqi lives killed multiplied by $1,000,000; plus value of oil stolen, health care costs for millions of Iraqis injured; plus billions in U.S. damage to Iraqi infrastructure). But what about the corporations like Haliburton and other U.S.-based corporations

CORPORATE PUNISHMENT
Retributivist Criteria of Desert (Responsibility and Proportionality)

THE CASE OF UNION CARBIDE
Thousands die from toxic chemical leak, several thousand injured for life. Question: who or what is responsible for the thousands of deaths and injuries? Question: what kind(s) of punishment ought to be meted out to the responsible agents, and why?

METHODS OF CORPORATE PUNISHMENT
Adverse Publicity and/or Fines of Corporations, the “Hester Prynne Sanction.” [reference to The Scarlet Letter] Concerns with the Hester Prynne Sanction… Piercing the corporate veil and adverse publicity, fines and hard treatment of corporate-individuals most guilty of the crimes. Billions in personal assets seized from those most responsible to pay for damages to Iraqis, then imprisonment for life, or death for those most responsible.

Seizure of corporate assets to pay Iraqi victims! Millions every year as fines for their involvement in Iraqi invasion and occupation.

PHIL 101 NOTES – MARCH 13TH
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF ETHICS: PART 3 RACE, RACISM, AND REPARATIONS REVIEW OF PART 1 OF THE COURSE
• Part 1 introduced us to versions of Moral Skepticism.

REVIEW OF PART 2 OF THE COURSE
• • Part 2 introduced us to the problem of responsibility and the 5 conditions of responsibility. We learned that the conditions of responsibility were necessary and sufficient for punishment for wrong doing. We were introduced to various theories of punishment, and found that utilitarian and retributivist theories were the main competitors. We saw that forgiveness and mercy are more complicated than most think, requiring genuine apology but never requiring forgiveness. We learned that collectives of certain kinds can qualify for punishment.

[“Happy as a bacon shit”]

RACE, RACISM, AND REPARATIONS
• • • This book is endorsed strongly by the most influential philosophers in these fields of inquiry. Other philosophy books deal with either race or racism or reparations. They provide incomplete pictures of these problems as they relate to each other.

Purpose of this book is to address problems of race, racism, and reparations. It is Volume 1, Volume 2 will be completed this summer: Racism and Responsibility.

• • • • •

The problem of race often leads to racism, which in some cases requires reparations. Provides the first philosophical analysis of the nature of ethnic identity and Latino/a identity. Provides the first philosophical analysis of the nature of racism. Provides a new theory of affirmative action. Provides a new argument about reparations for both Native and African Americans.

RACE – [CHAPTER 1]
• Primitive “race” theories: genetic and morphological (hair texture, eye color and shape, skin color, etc.) features used to categorize humans into separate groups. (p. 7) Racial groups: negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid.

THE DEATH OF RACE PROBLEMS WITH PRIMITIVE RACE THEORIES
• • • • Genetic arbitrariness objection: Why particular genetic traits, and not others? (p. 8) Incompleteness objection: Why mere genetic traits in determining race? (p. 9) Insignificance objection: Why are the genetic differences important? (p. 9) Human Genome Project: No scientific evidence to categorize humans into different groups by race! Human races do NOT exist! Thus, since the concept of race is based on primitive race theories, and since primitive race theories are unsound, the concept of race must be rejected. The concept of ethnicity should replace that of race.

ETHNIC IDENTITY
• • [Important: ethnic pride, medical research, corrective justice.] Example: Latino identity. [East coast says Hispanic mostly, not Latino.] [Umbrella term to refer to all Latin groups.] For purposes of public policy administration, we need general terms to categorize us. [The law can’t deal with so much specificity.] [Metaphysics is the philosophical study of reality. Ethnicity, in these terms, is just a social construct.] Example should be able to be generalized to other ethnic groups.

LATINO IDENTITY

WHAT IS A LATINO/A?
• • Analysis of a Latino/a: necessary and sufficient conditions. The purpose of our analysis: positive public policy administration.

DEFINING “LATINO/A”
• • What are the necessary conditions? What are the sufficient conditions?

SPANISH LANGUAGE AND LATINO/A IDENTITY
• Is reading, writing, speaking Spanish or one of its dialects a necessary condition? [Counterexamples, find a “paradigmatic Latino/a.”] [Out of all of the hundreds of kids in Corlett’s neighborhood, only three went to college, him and his brothers that stopped speaking Spanish because their mother told them to stop.] Is reading, writing, or speaking Spanish or one of its dialects a sufficient condition?

LATINO NAMES AND LATINO IDENTITY
• • Is having a Latino name a necessary condition? Is having a Latino name a sufficient condition?

LATINO CULTURE AND LATINO IDENTITY
• Is participation in and appreciation of a Latino culture a necessary condition of Latino identity?

PHIL 101 NOTES – APRIL 10TH
REPARATIONS RACE, RACISM, AND REPARATIONS LAST EXAM
• • • Study session after class Tuesday before exam. Wear sunglasses, gloves, etc! Open book, NO notes, but open book.

REPARATIONS
• [Extremely easy to engage in racism.]

• • • •

[Discussed “linguistic privilege”.] [Focused on black experience, not much on Native Americans/Indians.] [Directive from Andrew Jackson to turn Indians into “white folk” – form of genocide.] Definition: payment for an injury, redress for a wrong done… restoring anything to its rightful owner; the act of making good or giving equivalent to its rightful owner… [Reparations are: “compensation to groups.”]

REPARATIONS ARGUMENT
1. Instances of clear and substantial historic rights violations ought to be rectified by way of reparations. 2. The US government has clearly committed substantial historic rights violations against millions of Indians and blacks. 3. Therefore, the historic rights violations by the US government against Indians and blacks ought to be rectified by way of reparations.

THE PRINCIPLE OF MORALLY JUST ACQUISITIONS AND TRANSFERS
Borrowed from “Robert Nosik.” • Whatever is acquired or transferred by morally just means is itself morally just; whatever is acquired or transferred by morally unjust means is itself morally unjust.

MORAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
• There is NO moral statute of limitations on injustice! “Unrectified evil is evil still!”

WHAT CAN WE INHERIT
• • • Wealth. [Assuming it is right.] Debt. If it is morally just to inherit wealth, by parity of reasoning it is also morally just to inherit debt.

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE REPARATIONS ARGUMENT
• The Objection to Collective Responsibility [and Intergenerational Justice, in the case of blacks] (pp. 157-160*; 197-213*). The Objection from Historical and Normative Progress (pp. 161-164*; 213-214). The Affirmative Action Objection (pp. 164-165*; 214*).

• •

PHIL 101 NOTES – APRIL 24TH
PHILOSOPHY OF ETHICS: PART 4: TERRORISM RACE, RACISM, AND REPARATIONS

[INTRO]
[If there are human rights, then there is a human right to protect your rights (right to rebellion).] [Talked about nonviolent protest last week – picketing etc. But if you get invaded by an army, picketing doesn’t do you any good, need to step it up and fight back. (Violence is justified in self-defense).] [Some Jews during Nazi reign became terrorists in defense. Was this justified? [People who are part of a community are much less likely to want to destroy it. “That is a basic psychological principle.”] [Mill was not against political violence, had certain conditions set that needed to be fulfilled to be justified.]

KANT ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE
• Killing and maiming humans is worse than damaging property; [Corlett would add on “other living things” too] Targeting only those directly deserving of political violence is better than random violence; [“only the guilty should be punished”] Violence directed at forcing specific reforms from a government that resists peaceful appeals is better than violence that seeks to bring down the entire government; [reformatory violence preferred over toppling entire government] Violence ought to be used as a “last resort;” all other peaceful means of change must be attempted in good faith before violence is employed; The motives for the violence must be right; Must consider the amount of harm caused by the violence and the chance of success of it.

• •

CRITIQUE OF KANT ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE
• “Last resort” too strong a condition for the proper use of PV. But some non-violent means must have been attempted first. Like Mill, Kant is wrong about the chance of success criterion of PV. Even if it cannot succeed fully, it might be well deserved PV. Ex: suicide bombings against invading military.

MARX AND ENGELS ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE
• See page 63: quotation from Engels.

ENGELS’ ARGUMENT FROM COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
1. Whatever results in death from force and knowledge that the circumstances in which people are living make it impossible for workers to survive is the illicit killing persons; 2. Workers sometimes die and are sometimes forced to sell their labor power under conditions where it is impossible for them to survive; 3. Society “knows perfectly well that thousands of workers cannot avoid being sacrificed so long as these conditions are allowed to continue;”

4. Therefore, sometimes workers are wrongfully killed. [As per parity of reasoning, a society can be held accountable to an extent by the actions of its government provided the society is “well aware.”]

MARX AND ENGELS ON COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
• If a society allows or fails to prevent what it well could have prevented without much cost to itself, then if that circumstance results in a wrongdoing, then society becomes an accomplice in and c ollectively responsible for that wrongdoing. That society then becomes, under certain circumstances, a legitimate target of PV to the extent that that wrongdoing is itself violent. The terrorist response must be commensurate to the violence of the harmful wrongdoing that justifies terrorism.

FROM POLITICAL VIOLENCE TO TERRORISM
• • There is no absolute moral duty to obey the law. Pacificism, non-violent direct action, and civil disobedience are each morally justified ways of breaking the law, under specified conditions. But political violence is sometimes a justified way to break the law, under specified conditions. But is TERRORISM, a kind of political violence, ever morally justified?

• •

[British call colonists terrorists; because they used “non-conventional means of warfare.”]

CAN TERRORISM EVER BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED? CHAPTER 5
• • What exactly is terrorism? Is terrorism ever morally justified?

DEFINING “TERRORISM”
• Most every philosopher or scholar defines terrorism fallaciously, begging the moral question against terrorism (p. 116*). [Most define it as killing of innocent civilians – but it’s fallacious – the civilians are not necessarily innocent.] [Can’t mix moral justification with definition – must keep them different, otherwise, “definitional fallacy.”] But we must separate the questions of what terrorism is from the question of whether or not it is ever morally justified. Definition of “terrorism” (See pages 119-120*). [Terrorism is the attempt to achieve or prevent political, social, economic, or religious change by the actual or threatened use of violence against another persons’ property.]

• •

IS TERRORISM EVER MORALLY JUSTIFIED?
• Terrorism is morally justified to the extent that the following just war type conditions are satisfied…

THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF TERRORISM (PAGES 126-127)
• The terrorist is morally innocent and is defending herself or another against severe injustice (just cause); The terrorist is as conscientiously selective as possible in her choice of targets (right intention); [rules out people like children] The terrorist act is both proportional and directed only against those who deserve it (proportionality); If time and circumstance permit, non-violent methods of social change are attempted in good faith, but have failed (ie, terrorism is NOT a last resort); The terrorist plans her action so as to best achieve the ceasing of the injustice that would justify terrorism in the first place; and Others in her position are justified in using terrorism.

THE MORAL STATUS OF TERRORISM (CHAPTER 6)
• Terrorism is not either always right or always wrong. The moral question of terrorism is more complex than this. Each case of terrorism must be considered in light of the evidence, without prejudice. Only then, armed with our definition of “terrorism” and our analysis of the conditions of what would justify it on moral grounds, can we properly assess an instance of it.

• •

SOME RECENT TERRORIST ACTS
• Bombing of Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 1995 (p. 146*). [In response to Waco, TX; watch KPBS film]. o o o Out of proportion. Didn’t try other means. Killed people – didn’t try property damage.