Summary of "Intro. Ethics 15.3 Terrorism (Nagel)"

This lecture discusses Thomas Nagel’s short selection What is Wrong with Terrorism??, focusing on the moral condemnation of terrorist killings compared to other forms of murder.

Main Ideas and Concepts

Central Question: What makes terrorist killings more worthy of condemnation than other forms of murder? Nagel assumes terrorism is wrong but explores why terrorist killings are especially condemnable.
Comparison with Other Killings:
- Terrorism is often seen as worse than killings in war (e.g., soldier killing soldier).
- Nagel examines terrorist acts such as Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks, Palestinian suicide bombers, IRA militants, and the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima.
Rejection of Common Answers:
- The ends/goals of terrorism are not necessarily what make it worse (e.g., Hiroshima aimed to end WWII quickly, which is not condemnable).
- The fact that non-combatants are killed is not sufficient, since collateral damage in war is sometimes accepted.
Nagel’s Key Claim: Terrorism is wrong because terrorists directly aim to kill non-combatants, unlike wartime killings where non-combatants’ deaths are unintended collateral damage.
Moral Principle: There is a prohibition against aiming directly at the death of harmless persons. Killing is only permissible in self-defense or when targeting combatants. Directly targeting harmless persons violates the minimal respect owed to individuals.
Legitimate Risk vs. Direct Aim: Some activities (war, police actions, construction) may risk harm to innocents but are morally permissible if:
- The aim is important,
- Risks are minimized, and
- They express respect for human life by not aiming directly at innocents.
Terrorism fails this standard by intentionally aiming to kill innocents.

Complications and Challenges

Vagueness of "Harmless": Determining who is harmless can be difficult, especially in ambiguous cases like civilians working in munitions factories or weapons research.
Direct Aim vs. Indirect Consequences: The moral distinction between directly aiming to kill and causing death as an indirect consequence is controversial.
- Example: In euthanasia, the agent’s direct aim may be to end suffering, not death, but death is a known consequence.
- Some argue moral responsibility should consider foreseeable consequences, not just direct aims, suggesting a utilitarian perspective might better assess morality.

Conclusion

Nagel’s account is compelling and widely agreeable in explaining why terrorism is morally worse than other killings.

However, it raises deeper issues about the definitions of "harmless" and the moral significance of direct versus indirect aims.

The lecture encourages further reflection on these challenges and how to defend Nagel’s view against them.

Methodology / Logical Structure Presented

Step 1: Identify the central question about the moral condemnation of terrorism.
Step 2: Examine and reject common answers (terrorist goals, killing non-combatants per se).
Step 3: Propose Nagel’s answer: the wrongness lies in the direct aim to kill harmless persons.
Step 4: Clarify the moral principle forbidding aiming at harmless persons, even for good ends.
Step 5: Distinguish terrorism from legitimate activities that risk harm but do not aim to kill innocents.
Step 6: Acknowledge complications concerning the concepts of harmlessness and direct aims.
Step 7: Encourage critical engagement and consideration of objections.

Speakers / Sources Featured

Thomas Nagel: Philosopher and author of the article What is Wrong with Terrorism??
Lecture Speaker: Unnamed lecturer presenting and analyzing Nagel’s arguments (likely a philosophy or ethics professor).

No other speakers or sources are explicitly mentioned in the subtitles.