Sacred Cows and the Changing Face of Discourse on Terrorism: Cranking it Up a Notch

Michael Levine, S. Newman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Ethicists working in either ‘just war’ and/or ‘human rights’ traditions continue to beembroiled with the definition of terrorism and the question of whether terrorism can ever be morallyjustified; obsessed with non-combatant immunity and criteria for distinguishing combatants fromnon-combatants; and examining ‘the doctrine of double effect’. The move to other issues has,however, been embraced by those who initiated it since 9/11, those with new ideas and analysesthat draw from many disciplines. We will discuss why philosophical/political discussion aboutterrorism has taken a turn away from questions like ‘can terrorism can be morally justified’ andefforts to define terrorism. Discourse on terrorism, much of it extra-philosophical, has taken aturn for the better. It is increasingly concerned with issues about the nature of terrorism ratherthan its definition; the nature of the discourse itself about terrorism, and what this tells usabout terrorism; and the causes of terrorism – the examination of which is subverted by thediscourse on terrorism.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)359-371
JournalInternational Journal of Human Rights
Volume10
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Fingerprint

terrorism
discourse
immunity
doctrine
human rights
examination
cause

Cite this

@article{c04aa919224f4ff596c7ac287c498009,
title = "Sacred Cows and the Changing Face of Discourse on Terrorism: Cranking it Up a Notch",
abstract = "Ethicists working in either ‘just war’ and/or ‘human rights’ traditions continue to beembroiled with the definition of terrorism and the question of whether terrorism can ever be morallyjustified; obsessed with non-combatant immunity and criteria for distinguishing combatants fromnon-combatants; and examining ‘the doctrine of double effect’. The move to other issues has,however, been embraced by those who initiated it since 9/11, those with new ideas and analysesthat draw from many disciplines. We will discuss why philosophical/political discussion aboutterrorism has taken a turn away from questions like ‘can terrorism can be morally justified’ andefforts to define terrorism. Discourse on terrorism, much of it extra-philosophical, has taken aturn for the better. It is increasingly concerned with issues about the nature of terrorism ratherthan its definition; the nature of the discourse itself about terrorism, and what this tells usabout terrorism; and the causes of terrorism – the examination of which is subverted by thediscourse on terrorism.",
author = "Michael Levine and S. Newman",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "359--371",
journal = "International Journal of Human Rights",
issn = "1364-2987",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

Sacred Cows and the Changing Face of Discourse on Terrorism: Cranking it Up a Notch. / Levine, Michael; Newman, S.

In: International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2006, p. 359-371.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sacred Cows and the Changing Face of Discourse on Terrorism: Cranking it Up a Notch

AU - Levine, Michael

AU - Newman, S.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Ethicists working in either ‘just war’ and/or ‘human rights’ traditions continue to beembroiled with the definition of terrorism and the question of whether terrorism can ever be morallyjustified; obsessed with non-combatant immunity and criteria for distinguishing combatants fromnon-combatants; and examining ‘the doctrine of double effect’. The move to other issues has,however, been embraced by those who initiated it since 9/11, those with new ideas and analysesthat draw from many disciplines. We will discuss why philosophical/political discussion aboutterrorism has taken a turn away from questions like ‘can terrorism can be morally justified’ andefforts to define terrorism. Discourse on terrorism, much of it extra-philosophical, has taken aturn for the better. It is increasingly concerned with issues about the nature of terrorism ratherthan its definition; the nature of the discourse itself about terrorism, and what this tells usabout terrorism; and the causes of terrorism – the examination of which is subverted by thediscourse on terrorism.

AB - Ethicists working in either ‘just war’ and/or ‘human rights’ traditions continue to beembroiled with the definition of terrorism and the question of whether terrorism can ever be morallyjustified; obsessed with non-combatant immunity and criteria for distinguishing combatants fromnon-combatants; and examining ‘the doctrine of double effect’. The move to other issues has,however, been embraced by those who initiated it since 9/11, those with new ideas and analysesthat draw from many disciplines. We will discuss why philosophical/political discussion aboutterrorism has taken a turn away from questions like ‘can terrorism can be morally justified’ andefforts to define terrorism. Discourse on terrorism, much of it extra-philosophical, has taken aturn for the better. It is increasingly concerned with issues about the nature of terrorism ratherthan its definition; the nature of the discourse itself about terrorism, and what this tells usabout terrorism; and the causes of terrorism – the examination of which is subverted by thediscourse on terrorism.

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 359

EP - 371

JO - International Journal of Human Rights

JF - International Journal of Human Rights

SN - 1364-2987

IS - 4

ER -