Reading Guide for Stephen Nathanson’s “Can Terrorism Be Morally Justified?”

Word process all responses.

1. List the reference entry for the essay in APA format (Publication Manual, 4.16 #34).

Use both dates.

2. Nathanson states that just condemning acts of terror oversimplifies the issue. Why?

Paraphrase the phrase “morally problematic” (p.532).

3. By what two standards should acts of terror be evaluated? (p. 532)

4. Summarize Nathanson’s definition of terrorism (p. 533). What would you add to or delete

from his list?

5. What is the dilemma that Nathanson describes on page 533?

6. How does Walzer condemn the killing of innocent civilians but find the aerial attacks on

Germany in WWII acceptable?

7. Wallace (p. 535) lists four criteria that justify the bombing of Nazi Germany. Explain why

Nathanson says that #1 and #4 cancel out one another. Do you agree?

8. Primoratz (p. 536) lists three reasons that terrorism is morally wrong. What are they?

9. What is the “’principle of double effect’?” How does Nathanson apply this to the events of

9/11 (p. 537)? How does he use the “principle of double effect” to refute Primoratz’s

argument (pp. 537-8)?

10. Nathanson says that terrorist acts are always wrong; nonetheless, they can sometimes be

morally justified. How does he support this claim (pp. 538-40)? Do you agree?

11. Skim pages 22-23 of Chapter 2 of Doing Ethics. Is Nathanson arguing from a position of

moral objectivism, cultural relativism, or subjective relativism? There may be more than one

right answer. Just be ready to support your choice.