| Contents |
The problem of defining terrorism -- Defining terrorism -- What makes terrorism wrong? -- Innocence and discrimination -- "Who dun it" definitions of terrorism -- Why standard theories fail to condemn terrorism -- Just war theory and the problem of collateral damage -- The realist challenge to the ethics of war -- An ethic of war for reasonable realists -- Walzer on noncombatant immunity as a human right -- The supreme emergency exception -- Rights theories, utilitarianism, and the killing of civilians -- Immunity rights vs. the right of self-defence -- A rule-utilitarian defense of noncombatant immunity -- Why utilitarian criticisms of noncombatant immunity are mistaken -- Is noncombantant immunity a "mere" convention? -- The problem of collateral damage killings -- The ethics of collateral damage killings -- The ethics of collateral damage killings. |
| Summary |
Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. Challenging the realist view that morality does not apply to war, he provides an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity. |
| Local note | Little-356737--305131059186% |
| Bibliography note | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
| LCCN | 2010282100 |
| ISBN | 9780521199957 (hbk.) |
| ISBN | 0521199956 (hbk.) |
| ISBN | 9780521137164 (pbk.) |
| ISBN | 0521137160 (pbk.) |
