Is assassination better than terrorism?

[selfAdjoint]

For the purposes of this discussion consider assassination to be the killing of a specific individual for reasons connected to that individual, while terrorism is to be considered the killing of random individuals for reasons that have no specific relevance to the individuals killed.

 

[turbo]

A person who participates in a terrorist enterprise may have any number of motivations, and their "targets" may or may not be culpable.

A person who plans an assassination is motivated to kill a certain individual, and presumably their target is culpable, in their estimation.

Who are we to make a moral distinction between a person who kills many innocents to achieve a political end, or someone who arranges for certain specific people to be killed to achieve a political end?

 

[Pengwuino]

I say assassination is morally better simply because there maaaaay be reasons such a thing might a good thing where as the killing of random people has no justification. It's pretty hard to compare but I guess if you have to, assassinations are a bit better...

 

[Rade]

Both are immoral by any logical definition of morality.

 

[emrandel]

It is only the goal/result that is relevant when looking back (following the event) that matters, the way it is achieved is rather irrelevant unless it effects you personally.

 

[Sir_Deenicus]

I certainly don't have any training in this area so please forgive my naivety.

If one considers one and the other as amorally unforgivable as the other, then in terms of pure weight Id have to go with terrorism as it affects more people and causes more widespread despair,suffering and damage.

Following that thought direction... What if you knew a baby, your child maybe, would grow up to be a terrorist that would kill millions. What would you do?

 

[emrandel]

"Following that thought direction... What if you knew a baby, your child maybe, would grow up to be a terrorist that would kill millions. What would you do?"

Well, it depends, if it's politics were in order with mine... I would go along with it, even mentor it's outlook while it grew to hate what it would one day destroy. If it was a threat to me, that'd be one dead baby.

 

[blackmama]

it depends on what you think is terrorism and assassination. look what's happening today, everyone ganging up on iraq, howcome no one ever says bush or that english dude's a terrorrist? if you were living in iraq i think u would think america was terrorr country. and am starting to believe them... but that's my oppinoun

 

[russ_watters]

Who are we to make a moral distinction between a person who kills many innocents to achieve a political end, or someone who arranges for certain specific people to be killed to achieve a political end?

Everyone makes personal moral judgements. Who are we to do that? We are people with moral beliefs that require it.

Both are immoral by any logical definition of morality.

The OP was not very specific, terrorism and assassination are different things (and because of that, I voted that they can't be compared), but certainly there are instances where assassination is not merely better, but actually morally right (under most major moral codes). The usual example: it would have been morally right to assassinate Hitler during WWII.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is never morally right.

 

[russ_watters]

it depends on what you think is terrorism and assassination. look what's happening today, everyone ganging up on iraq, howcome no one ever says bush or that english dude's a terrorrist? if you were living in iraq i think u would think america was terrorr country. and am starting to believe them... but that's my oppinoun

Don't obfuscate the issue by arguing against definitions. Definitions are definitions. Assume that the OP was using the most common/accepted definitions of the words.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I thought I was perfectly specific. I did not discuss different motives because that was not what I wanted to discuss. The question was whether killing one individual for some reason connected with that individual was morally different from random killing for some reason that was not otherwise connectied to the killing (or perhaps, for no purpose at all, if you can envision that). What part of this don't people understand?

 

[scott1]

Assantion is only targeting one person at a time.Terroism is killing hunderds of untargeted people at time just because you hate them for reason and you don't really care who there only that's targting the gourp that you hate

 

[russ_watters]

What part of this don't people understand?

It isn't that it is hard to understand, it's just that the reason for just about any action is critical to determining the morality of the action. Because of that, assassinating Hitler because he is leading a war of conquest/genocide is clearly a morally right thing to do while assassinating him long before the war simply for being an anti-semite would not be morally right.

With terrorism, the victims are, by definition, innocent and because of that, killing them is always wrong.

I thought I was perfectly specific. I did not discuss different motives because that was not what I wanted to discuss.

It is your prerogrative since you started the thread, but not discussing different (ie, specific) motives is not being specific, it's being general. And that's why the answer isn't a simple yes or no, but a "depends on the specifics".

 

[JonahHex]

With terrorism, the victims are, by definition, innocent and because of that, killing them is always wrong.
.
.
.
And that's why the answer isn't a simple yes or no, but a "depends on the specifics".

"Innocent"? In whose eyes?

After all, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Is terrorism different from simultaneous assassination?

In war, I've always found the concept of "innocent civilians" to be rather far fetched, if not amusing. Is the pregnant wife of the guy who is shooting at me innocent? ...or is she "manufacturing replacement parts" for the enemy? Is the farmer who is growing food to feed the guy who is shooting at me innocent? Is the bank teller innocent? ...or is he abetting the financing of the effort to kill me?

 

[/0]

I believe there should be a level of civility in common with mankind, and anything that upsets that beyond simple annoyance should be destroyed, without a second thought. I will tolerate all kinds of speech, but I will not tolerate violence towards myself, or my 'team'.

My team is civilization.

If we all lived by that, there'd be no terrorists, so sorry for terrorists.


M

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I voted Assasination to be preferable to Terrorism.

The use of violence towards any person is only justifiable if that person is a direct threat (per at least my own ethical standards). The ethical justification for assasination rests on just how "direct" a threat that person is. Even though an argument must be made to illustrate the directness of that threat, and such an argument may fail, at least the individual who perpetrated such an action was mindful of the ethical rule.
One who kills people who are not even directly connected with the threat which motivates the action are in an obvious breech of the ethical rule. Considering this there is no possibility of argument for justification if we hold to the rule I postulated. Since there isn't even the possibility of justification the breech is that much more egregious.

Hassan Sabbah had leaders assasinated and spared the people under their rule of a war. Unfortunately I think that he may have started the trend of blindly faithful suicide attackers at the same time.

 

[uranium138]

Is war then terrorism? because war is just killing random people; so why is then going to war against innocent people acceptable and terrrorism not? (not that i agree with either)

 

[DrDeath]

both the act of terrorism and the act of assasination are in most situations morally wrong and therefore neither is better than the other, however sometimes assasination is morally right, the hitler example is perfect as hitler could be classed as a terrorist (he killed many innocent people for political gains) so assasinating him would have ended needless suffering therefore it would be morally right.

and war is not terrorism as it is directed at specific countrys or governments, yes random innocent people get killed but they are not intentionally targeted, terorrism is intentionally targeted randomly in order to cause maximum terror. hence the fact that war is initiated by legitimate governments against other governments/countrys whereas terorism is not.

 

[russ_watters]

Is war then terrorism? because war is just killing random people; so why is then going to war against innocent people acceptable and terrrorism not? (not that i agree with either)

Since when is war "just killing random people"? Typically in war, (especially when adhering to the laws of war), the targets are quite specific.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Since when is war "just killing random people"? Typically in war, (especially when adhering to the laws of war), the targets are quite specific.

This raises the interesting case where a nation-state directs a strike in a foreign country intended to kill a high profile terrorist or suborner of terrorism against its people. Such strike typically involve the undirected but entirely predictable deaths of random collateral innocents. The intent of the strike is assassination, i.e. the policy driven killing of a public figure, but the execution of the strike could be viewed by some as a form of terrorism, the effects on the population surrounding the target individual being an acceptible secondary policy to the striking nation (or so, again, it is viewed by some). How would we evaluate that? I consider that it is by deeply reflecting on such hard cases that we come to an understanding of the role of ethics in the modern public sphere.

Or consider this closely related case: The UN's only weapon against nation-states, sanctions. Sanctions are intended to disrupt the nation's economy and thereby cause hardship to its people, which is hoped will induce the leaders of that nation to change their policies. But in the course of that disruption, assuming it is succssfully achieved, it is likely that people will die. Babies will die. And these deaths are part of the negative effects that the UN hopes will influence the leaders. So how is this not terrorism?

 

[russ_watters]

This raises the interesting case where a nation-state directs a strike in a foreign country intended to kill a high profile terrorist or suborner of terrorism against its people. Such strike typically involve the undirected but entirely predictable deaths of random collateral innocents. The intent of the strike is assassination, i.e. the policy driven killing of a public figure...

Different issue, but yes, an interesting one...

...but the execution of the strike could be viewed by some as a form of terrorism, the effects on the population surrounding the target individual being an acceptible secondary policy to the striking nation (or so, again, it is viewed by some). How would we evaluate that? I consider that it is by deeply reflecting on such hard cases that we come to an understanding of the role of ethics in the modern public sphere.

Objectively, I'd say that terrorism must have a consistent, objective definition and thus can't be an eye-of-the-beholder concept. Practically, I understand that the unintended victims of such an attack do not necessarily consider it rationally. Because of that reality, the attacker must do a cost-benefit analysis that includes the emotional response of the unintended victims. The typical example is Israel - they often attack known terrorists surrounded by civilians and I don't think they always weigh the reaction of the surrounding populous adequately in their decision-making process.

Or consider this closely related case: The UN's only weapon against nation-states, sanctions. Sanctions are intended to disrupt the nation's economy and thereby cause hardship to its people, which is hoped will induce the leaders of that nation to change their policies. But in the course of that disruption, assuming it is succssfully achieved, it is likely that people will die. Babies will die. And these deaths are part of the negative effects that the UN hopes will influence the leaders. So how is this not terrorism?

Subjectively, I can see how the victims might percieve it that way (especially if their opinions are clouded by the propaganda of their criminal leadership), but objectively, inaction cannot be a form of terrorism. Trade and aid are actions that change the natural isolated state of the country in question and stopping these actions just returns the country to its natural state. Contrast that with actual destruction of infrastructure or a blockade which prevents anyone from trading. The lack of a positive action is not the same as a negative action.

A clear example of this is current funding situation of the PA. Israel (and others) cannot be compelled to fund a sworn enemy just because removing the funding will force their enemy to fend for itself.

[edit] Now that I think about it, there are lots of examples of sanctions that have had the same issue. Iraq and North Korea are good examples. In both cases, special extra measures were taken (ie, oil for food program) to safeguard the populace while undermining the dictator, but what happened? The dictator cheated the program and thrived, while the populace still suffered.

 

[loseyourname]

I thought I was perfectly specific. I did not discuss different motives because that was not what I wanted to discuss. The question was whether killing one individual for some reason connected with that individual was morally different from random killing for some reason that was not otherwise connectied to the killing (or perhaps, for no purpose at all, if you can envision that). What part of this don't people understand?

Russ kind of addressed this already and it's an old post at this point, but since this thread is still active, I thought I'd chime in. I don't think assassination is very well defined as "killing one individual for some reason connected with that individual." Murder, euthanasia, capital punishment, self-defense killings, and a number of additional acts that are not assassinations all fall under this general mode of killing and they are not morally equivalent. To assess the morality of an action, we need to know something a little bit more specific about it. Even in the case of an assassination better defined (I would define it roughly as killing a high-ranking political leader of some sort for political reasons) may or may not be a moral thing to do, under any system of morality that does not hold all killing to be immoral regardless of qualification, depending upon that qualification (hence, russ' example: sure, assassinating Hitler would have been moral - assassinating Kennedy was not). Such systems are not exactly all that widely held (I can really only think of Jainism and Pacifism, though I'm sure there are others).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thank you for the comment. I agree with your criticism of my definition of assassination. How do you like "killing a PUBLIC figure for reasons connected with his PUBLIC image". i.e. because he's president with such and such policies, or because he's reputed to be leader of a terrorist gang.

 

[mathwonk]

this discussion seems depraved to me. at best the title should be "which is worse, assassination or terrorism?"

Perhaps you recall the original assassins were hashish crazed bandits and murderers who killed people they did not know, at the behest of their controller. Indeed according to Marco Polo the word assassin is a corruption of "hashish", while others claim it dwerives from Hassan, the leader of the sect.

But there is no honor in either pursuit, nor justification.

 

[loseyourname]

Thank you for the comment. I agree with your criticism of my definition of assassination. How do you like "killing a PUBLIC figure for reasons connected with his PUBLIC image". i.e. because he's president with such and such policies, or because he's reputed to be leader of a terrorist gang.

That seems to work better. I would imagine there has to be some kind of legal definition out there, though.

 

[DrDeath]

this discussion seems depraved to me. at best the title should be "which is worse, assassination or terrorism?"

Perhaps you recall the original assassins were hashish crazed bandits and murderers who killed people they did not know, at the behest of their controller. Indeed according to Marco Polo the word assassin is a corruption of "hashish", while others claim it dwerives from Hassan, the leader of the sect.

But there is no honor in either pursuit, nor justification.

i think you might actually find that the people of whom you speak were not crazed bandits and murderers, they were the loyal gaurds of their leader who were used to eliminate threats to their culture and their leader from their enemys. there wasnt much in the way of crazed banditism about them. and your right the common term assassin does come from the old use of "hashish" which was the substance the so called "crazed bandits" used as a stimulant before going into battle.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you for the comment. I agree with your criticism of my definition of assassination. How do you like "killing a PUBLIC figure for reasons connected with his PUBLIC image". i.e. because he's president with such and such policies, or because he's reputed to be leader of a terrorist gang.

It still seems to me to require a case-by-case analysis unless the definition is more specific. There are some specific criteria that seem important to me:

[for external assassination]
-Does a state of war exist between the countries involved. (however, that may fall outside the definition - ie, if it is war, it can't be an assassination, but rather simply an act of war)

-Has there been an international judgement/indictment of criminality of the leader (ie, Noriega, Milosevich).

[for internal assassination]
-Has the leader committed internal political crimes for which there is no legal remedy? (Hitler)

 

[vanesch]

I voted for "morally the same" because of the overlap of both concepts. You can put either in a "better" light than the other.

For instance, I could argue that, if I KNEW that my neighbour was a child molester and child murderer (because I saw, heard... ) him do so, but because of one or other reason, justice didn't accept my charges and the man went free, and I decide to kill him to prevent him from continuing (even if that means that I will go to jail or worse), then this "assassination" is almost a nobel act.
But I could also decide to, say, kill all Jews because I am convinced that they are the evil of the world (innocent example of course ), in which case I'd think that such an assassination, when I do it on large scale (say, 6 million people), would be very bad.

Now, if we go to "terrorism", terrorism is a notion that can go in different directions. At its core, terrorism is the act of scaring the hell out of a population by violent acts, in order to obtain from that population that they exert pressure on their political system to take certain decisions. So you need an agenda, and acts that cause terror amongst the population in such a way that we get closer to the execution of the agenda. This can be by killing randomly some people (that's indeed scaring a population), but it does not necessarily go through the act of killing. For instance, sending some white powder around the country can act just as well in that way than to blow up a bomb.
Now, imagine that a group of terrorists uses such methods, say, to get a population rise up against their evil dictator who is assassinating others. What's then morally on the higher ground ?

The preference most people give here to assassination over terrorism is simply given by the current psychose over terrorism spread by some western politicians: they compare the murder of the lover of your wife to the twin towers, and say that if they have to choose, they'll go for the murderer over Ben Laden. It's one half guilty victim over 3 or 4 thousand innocents. But murder can be on a large scale, and terrorism can have a "good" agenda too.
Do you also prefer the systematic murder of the 6 million Jews over the hypothetical 20 victims of a terror group that wants to get rid of, say, Fidel Castro ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Patrick, I did specify the means of terror was killing. Changing the rules, as I'm sure you will agree, is not answering the question.

But your other point, that people in their own minds can justify anything is very much on point. Notoriously the Nazis applied the "moral heroism" of Ibsen's doctor in An Enemy of the People to their own holocaust of the Jews.

What I'm really trying to discover is people's attitudes to the question: "We don't always take 'Thou shalt not kill' literally; how do we really view hard cases of killing others?"

 

[vanesch]

Patrick, I did specify the means of terror was killing. Changing the rules, as I'm sure you will agree, is not answering the question.

Sorry, I should have read this more carefully.

What I'm really trying to discover is people's attitudes to the question: "We don't always take 'Thou shalt not kill' literally; how do we really view hard cases of killing others?"

In a way, one could even argue that "terrorism" is Macchiavellic. We don't really like killing, but it is a means to come to our end, which is a political agenda (instore communism, an islamic republic, the protection of migratory birds, the banning of nuclear power, praying to the spaghetti monster...). Killing is just a means, but not a goal.

In assassination, the goal is the death of the victim. Because we think it is a bastard, or because we think that he belongs to a group of Untermensch, or because he's pissing me off in one way or another. So killing is not a means, but a goal.

War is a combination of both! Killing is a means to obtain a desired goal, and let's admit it, the more bastards we can wipe out that way, the better we're off The only difference is the paperwork that goes with it. In the first cases, the actors are single, or a small group of people, with eventually some unofficial support, while in the war case, there is some official structure (parliament, government, president, dictator, junta, international council ...) who takes the decision.

 

[vanesch]

What I'm really trying to discover is people's attitudes to the question: "We don't always take 'Thou shalt not kill' literally; how do we really view hard cases of killing others?"

I think that this statement, in its strictest form, is inconsistent. The very fact of living and doing things, means that other people will die from it. Because of the chaotic nature of things, the fact of walking over the steet is potentially going to wipe out thousands of people - think of the butterfly effect. So the only truly consistent way for me to be sure that my actions are not in a remote causal relationship to the death of someone else, is by killing myself on the spot, but that's also killing someone. Ok, I'm pushing things a bit here of course, but I mean that there is an entire spectrum in the responsability I can have for the death of others. If the causal link is considered rather strong, it is called an assassination. If the causal link is less strong, it's maybe called an unfortunate accident (with or without some responsability on my part).
Of course, the intentions change, but then, what are intentions ? In the case of a clear causal relationship, which needed acts for which no reasonable explanation can be found except for the goal of killing the other, one can reasonably assume that the actor *intended* to kill. In other cases, if the acts can be explained by other motives (such as laziness or fun) one could be judged to have acted *carelessly*, and as such, be responsable for the death of the victim, but without the intention to do so.

But sometimes, things are not that clear. Thing become blurred when it is rather clear that deaths will arise because of your actions, but that your actions serve a goal you intend to pursue. For instance, car traffic kills. In the EU, there are yearly something like 40.000 deaths due to traffic. That's a small town each year that's whiped off the map! This is not "an unfortunate accident". Statistically, we know that this year again, about 40.000 people will die because of it. So not doing something drastically about it is indirectly being responsible for killing 40.000 people a year.
A simple decision could do so: ban all private car traffic ! The failure to do so is because car traffic serves a higher goal: liberty, free transport, economical activity...
In what way is this non-decision so fundamentally different from a terrorist group that wants to instore "a greater good" (according to them) ?
In what way are terrorists then vile murderers, but the politicians who refuse to ban private car traffic, and hence KNOW that 40.000 people will die, not ? A difference might be that in the case of car traffic, it is a decision that is commonly adhered to by the population, while the goals of terrrorists are often not shared by the population. But now we're saying that killing is ok, as long as it is an idea that is shared by the population...

So whether 'Thou shalt not kill' counts or not, for each case, is simply a matter of public opinion and consensus. Which can change on a day by day basis, and as such, is not a strict rule at all.

 

[clouded.perception]

It depends on the context.
Morality is subjective, so I doubt that either is ever moral to the 'victim'. But both can be done in defence, to pursuade or prevent harm of one's own friends/family/society, so it is perfectly moral for the aggressor.
I personally do not condone the killing of innocents for any reason and don't believe I would resort to such practice (although I can't be sure, having never been in the situation), but I would probably resort to assassination in defence of my family/friends/country, so I guess that I personally consider assassination morally better FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. However, I don't see how my opinion is better than anyone else's, so this is a minor point.
It should be noted that, as I previously said, both are immoral for the victim, and terrorism typically has a lot more victims than assassination. So again I'd go with assassination being better. The exception is if the assassination results in the harm of many people (for example, the disintegration or civil war of a country that results in desease/poverty/death/etc.)

 

[clouded.perception]

Both are immoral by any logical definition of morality.

'logical' definition of morality?
You haven't given any allowances in your statement for the actual situation. Are you saying that both are wrong under ANY circumstances? What if assassinating somebody halts a war with less loss of life than any other method (one life for many)? Are you saying, two wrongs don't make a right no matter the circumstance?

Please clarify your meaning.

P.S. I just read over that and it sounded like an accusation. It isn't meant to be; just a question.

 

[WhiteWolf]

I think they are both really just political methods. Assassination is to take out someone running the government. Although it involves less death and it is more effective then terrorism, so I guess in that sense it is morally better, when it boils down to things, terrorism is just to sway the government a certain way. When Spain was attacked, the terrorists weren't trying to kill random civilians. They wanted to force Spain out of the war. The terrorists succeeded in doing so. That is the whole point of terrorism. It has political motives, not murderious motives like many people spin it off as.

 

[Rade]

'logical' definition of morality? You haven't given any allowances in your statement for the actual situation. Are you saying that both are wrong under ANY circumstances? What if assassinating somebody halts a war with less loss of life than any other method (one life for many)? Are you saying, two wrongs don't make a right no matter the circumstance? Please clarify your meaning. P.S. I just read over that and it sounded like an accusation. It isn't meant to be; just a question.

Morality is a code of ethics adopted by a group of humans that is accepted by all within the group by choice. There is only one standard of moral value for this group, the life of the individual human being. Thus, yes, I hold that assassination of any individual, or terrorism against groups of individuals, are both immoral because both acts take the life of an individual without just cause. An example of just cause would be self-defense, but neither assassination nor terrorism are acts of self-defense (by self I mean one person). By your definition of just act of assassination the current President of the USA should have been justly assassinated many months ago--but I am sure this is not what you really mean--is it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Morality is a code of ethics adopted by a group of humans that is accepted by all within the group by choice. There is only one standard of moral value for this group, the life of the individual human being. Thus, yes, I hold that assassination of any individual, or terrorism against groups of individuals, are both immoral because both acts take the life of an individual without just cause. An example of just cause would be self-defense, but neither assassination nor terrorism are acts of self-defense (by self I mean one person). By your definition of just act of assassination the current President of the USA should have been justly assassinated many months ago--but I am sure this is not what you really mean--is it.

With your definition of morality as just a social convention, it would be possible to conceive of a society where the assassination of an unpopular president WOULD be seen as a moral act! Indeed do not the assassins of culturally unpopular figures justify themselves as performaing a moral duty? Should we accept this since we can tell ourselves "In their culture if not ours, that is legitimate"?

 

[Rade]

With your definition of morality as just a social convention, it would be possible to conceive of a society where the assassination of an unpopular president WOULD be seen as a moral act! Indeed do not the assassins of culturally unpopular figures justify themselves as performaing a moral duty? Should we accept this since we can tell ourselves "In their culture if not ours, that is legitimate"?

No, it is not possible to conceive of a "society" that justifies assassination of its leader--do you know of any society, past or present, where assassination is (was) legal--thus moral ? There is a big difference between legal removal and perhaps legal death of leader by "society" (which is moral) with act of assassination by any individual. As you say, it is very common for a single individual to falsely conclude that they derive some moral right or duty from society to take the law into their own hands and thus commit act of assassination. This act is always immoral when taken by the individual, there are no exceptions (that is how morality is defined--it is an axiomatic concept). Finally, I would be interested in your definition of morality that is worthy of humans to follow that is not derived from first principal as a "social convention".

 

[selfAdjoint]

No, it is not possible to conceive of a "society" that justifies assassination of its leader--do you know of any society, past or present, where assassination is (was) legal--thus moral ?

No I don't know of any but that doesn't make it inconceivable. A society where assassination rather than execution (as of King Charles I) is the method of choice is quite conceivable.

There is a big difference between legal removal and perhaps legal death of leader by "society" (which is moral) with act of assassination by any individual.

This is certainly true, but again, it doesn't rule out conceivability.

(Added)Here is a possible configuration: The good people of this conceivable society don't want to have the blood of their disgraced chief magistrate on their own hands. So it is provided that after some appropriate legal proceedings an "Open Season" is declared on that individual. If an attempted or successful assassin is caught, she will be held innocent of any crime. But it is really rather wished that the assassin will not be caught and that the death of the leader will occur at the hands of "persons unknown".

 

[Rade]

(Added)Here is a possible configuration: The good people of this conceivable society don't want to have the blood of their disgraced chief magistrate on their own hands. So it is provided that after some appropriate legal proceedings an "Open Season" is declared on that individual. If an attempted or successful assassin is caught, she will be held innocent of any crime. But it is really rather wished that the assassin will not be caught and that the death of the leader will occur at the hands of "persons unknown".

Aha--a good laugh added to dry philosophy. Your argument here brings new meaning to term "running for office".--deer elevated to status of politician--would the open seasons overlap do you think ?

 

[Rader]

No, it is not possible to conceive of a "society" that justifies assassination of its leader--do you know of any society, past or present, where assassination is (was) legal--thus moral ? There is a big difference between legal removal and perhaps legal death of leader by "society" (which is moral) with act of assassination by any individual. As you say, it is very common for a single individual to falsely conclude that they derive some moral right or duty from society to take the law into their own hands and thus commit act of assassination. This act is always immoral when taken by the individual, there are no exceptions.

The Roman Empire. If you consider the Roman Senate the seat of power in the Roman Empire and they were. The death of Ceasar qualifies.

 

[Rade]

The Roman Empire. If you consider the Roman Senate the seat of power in the Roman Empire and they were. The death of Ceasar qualifies.

Well no...Ceasar broke the laws of Rome (he was a criminal), and thus he was morally put to death by the state (e.g., members of the senate). Ceasar was not assinated, he received death penalty for violation of state laws. See this web information:

In 59 BC, Caesar was appointed a consul and in 58 BC he went to Gaul (France) where he served as governor. He was successful in this position and conquered even more land for the Roman Empire. Caesar was a brilliant general and commanded an army of over 50,000 loyal men. His success at a military level all but guaranteed the loyalty of his soldiers. But he was seen by some as a cruel man solely driven by expanding his own personal power. As a result, he made enemies of important politicians in Rome itself. Some senior army generals, such as Pompey, were also very concerned about Caesar's intentions.

In 49 BC the Senate ordered Caesar to hand over his army to their control. He refused. Instead Caesar advanced on Italy but paused at the line that divided France (Gaul) and Italy - the River Rubicon. Roman law said that a governor was not allowed to leave his province. Caesar ignored this law, crossed the Rubicon and advanced to confront his enemies in Rome. The Senate considered this to be a treasonable offence but there was little they could do. Caesar had a very powerful and experienced army and his opponents were fragmented. Pompey was killed in Egypt in 48 BC. For the next three years he picked off his enemies one by one whether they were in North Africa, the Middle East or Europe.

Caesar returned to Rome in 45 BC as a dictator. However, he allowed the Senate to continue working - except that he replaced disloyal senators with his own appointments of loyal men. Caesar should have used his position to make powerless those he had removed from the Senate - but he did not. Caesar did not take away their wealth and these men plotted against him.

In 44 BC, Caesar was murdered by those politicians who feared that he was too obsessed with his own importance. His murder took place at the Senate House in Rome. After his murder, Rome was divided as to whether it was a good thing or not.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well did the Senate properly consider the case and reach a decision to execute Caesar? Not according to the history I learned. Rather it was conspiritors whodunnit. I wonder if their act could be considered assassination within the limited definition I used. Perhaps some of them intended to "send a message" but certainly others had more personal goals in mind!

 

[arivero]

Well did the Senate properly consider the case and reach a decision to execute Caesar? Not according to the history I learned. Rather it was conspiritors whodunnit.

It was considered by more venerable statements that the Senate, namely the House of Brutus, that predates it. This is the origin of Shakespearian Caesar exclamation "et tu...!": The involvement of Brutus legalises the action and spells that Caesar is been accused of trying to stablish a Monarchy.

After the action, Ciceron tell us, the conspirators proceeded to handshake -literally. They walk giving hands one by one- with all the other members of the Senate, to confirm it.

One should not confuse this action with more trivial killing (or killing attemtps) of leaders in our days. There is a lot of fundational magic (bridges and nations are equal in needing a fundational dead body) involved in Caesar's theme. The killing of Tarquinio creates the republic but the city loses his Army Chief. The killing of Caesar finishes the republic and becomes the fundation of the Empire. During the republic, each time an Army Chief is needed, a magic act is done to give it to a leader, then the leader moves to Tarquinio's land, out of Roma sacred walls, and there (the so called "Mars Field") he invokes to the Quirites, the Roman Army. The Army Chief is forbidden to enter Roma even if the Army itself is far out of the Rubicon; if he needs to speak with the Senate, the Senate must go out of Roman wall to meet him, because this prohibition law is of a rank stronger than senatorial law.

 

[Rader]

Well no...Ceasar broke the laws of Rome (he was a criminal), and thus he was morally put to death by the state (e.g., members of the senate). Ceasar was not assinated, he received death penalty for violation of state laws. See this web information:

In 59 BC, Caesar was appointed a consul and in 58 BC he went to Gaul (France) where he served as governor. He was successful in this position and conquered even more land for the Roman Empire. Caesar was a brilliant general and commanded an army of over 50,000 loyal men. His success at a military level all but guaranteed the loyalty of his soldiers. But he was seen by some as a cruel man solely driven by expanding his own personal power. As a result, he made enemies of important politicians in Rome itself. Some senior army generals, such as Pompey, were also very concerned about Caesar's intentions.

In 49 BC the Senate ordered Caesar to hand over his army to their control. He refused. Instead Caesar advanced on Italy but paused at the line that divided France (Gaul) and Italy - the River Rubicon. Roman law said that a governor was not allowed to leave his province. Caesar ignored this law, crossed the Rubicon and advanced to confront his enemies in Rome. The Senate considered this to be a treasonable offence but there was little they could do. Caesar had a very powerful and experienced army and his opponents were fragmented. Pompey was killed in Egypt in 48 BC. For the next three years he picked off his enemies one by one whether they were in North Africa, the Middle East or Europe.

Caesar returned to Rome in 45 BC as a dictator. However, he allowed the Senate to continue working - except that he replaced disloyal senators with his own appointments of loyal men. Caesar should have used his position to make powerless those he had removed from the Senate - but he did not. Caesar did not take away their wealth and these men plotted against him.

In 44 BC, Caesar was murdered by those politicians who feared that he was too obsessed with his own importance. His murder took place at the Senate House in Rome. After his murder, Rome was divided as to whether it was a good thing or not.

Just for the record do you think it was a good thing or not?

Ceasar broke the laws of Rome? Well, I realize we can all choose to judge history as we wish. The law of Rome was whoever had the power and the power was, its armies was the law. Legions were controlled by whoever backed them. The senate committed first degree murder, unilaterally; they could have dealt with this in other ways and then it would have been considered moral. The Roman Empire was a government of assassins. They conquered the world with this ideology, they entertained themselves with there cult of gladiators and they dealt with Caesar by the same measures.
Caesar was assassinated, it was a thumb down decision just like in the forum, and not all were in favour but most were. Forget about individual historians opinions look at the general context of what happened not only to Caesar but in general during the reign of the Roman Empire.

 

[selfAdjoint]

look at the general context of what happened not only to Caesar but in general during the reign of the Roman Empire.

And not only the Empire but the preceding Republic. The history of that institution from the Gracchi to Caesar casts into deep doubt any legalistic interpretation for Caesar's killing. Assassination as an instrument of class-control was well developed.

 

[daveb]

Both are equally immoral, even if some good comes from one or the other. Both treat an individual (or group of individuals) as objects as a means to an end.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Both are equally immoral, even if some good comes from one or the other. Both treat an individual (or group of individuals) as objects as a means to an end.

This is the Kantian view, and it is the one I personally agree with. But other popular theories of morals reach different conclusions. Consequentialism for example gets into sometimes fanciful calculus of how much benefit accrues from doing something versus how much pain. Thus is it moral to kill one person to save two? If so is it moral to kill one person to save one other and buy me a Cadillac?

 

[Rade]

Just for the record do you think it was a good thing or not?Caesar broke the laws of Rome? Well, I realize we can all choose to judge history as we wish. The law of Rome was whoever had the power and the power was, its armies was the law.

But my dear Rader [and you also SelfAdjoint], you confuse historical Roman Empire with Roman Republic. Of course, the Roman Empire, dated to 27 BC when Roman senate granted divine powers to Octavian Augustus, is what you talk about. But Julius Caesar lived during time of Roman Republic, which established a very formal set of "laws" (called the 12 boards) since 450 BC ! See this link:
http://www.ancient-rome.biz/the-roman-law.html

So no, J. Caesar was not assassinated, he was put to death by the senate in the only way open to them at the time when the Republic was about to fold, and the reason (the moral justification) was because he broke > 400 years of well established Roman laws. J. Caesar was a criminal, Augustus Caesar was elevated to status of a god.

 

[Rade]

I would like to move the discussion back to topic of OP. I find it interesting that 50 % of votes find assassination better than terrorism, yet no one (0.0 %) finds terrorism better than assassination. So, using the logic of this poll, John Wilkes Booth was just a fine and dandy fellow compared to a female in Iraq that walks up to a USA marine with a bomb attached to her waist and kills ? I don't think so. Assassination and terrorism are both morally evil because morality is an absolute, there are no gray areas between life and death--it is either-or situation, and "right to life" is morally an absolute (just ask Thomas Jefferson---We hold these truths to be self evident...).

 

[Rader]

Assassination and terrorism are both morally evil because morality is an absolute, there are no gray areas between life and death--it is either-or situation, and "right to life" is morally an absolute (just ask Thomas Jefferson---We hold these truths to be self evident...).

OK, I will agree with your last statement. I have two questions, ONE Then how come States interpret this unalienable right in the wrong way? TWO Why do you say assassination and terrorism are both morally evil and then previously say J. Caesar was not assassinated, he was put to death by the senate in the only way open to them at the time when the Republic was about to fold, and the reason (the moral justification) was because he broke > 400 years of well established Roman laws. J. Caesar was a criminal; Augustus Caesar was elevated to status of a god.

You say morality is an absolute and then you say it is not. What difference does it make what word you use to kill, assassinate, execute, kill or murder? It is morally wrong. If what you want to say is that the Roman Senate was acting morally by executing Caesar, you are making a misinterpretation of what morality you think they may have had. They had none, that’s not the meaning of morality.