Is assassination better than terrorism?

  • Thread starter selfAdjoint
  • Start date
In summary: not be morally right, as the act of killing him for any reason other than his role in starting a war against humanity is not justified.

Which is better: Assassination or terrorism?

  • Assassination is morally better

    Votes: 27 51.9%
  • Terrorism is morally better

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • They are morally the same

    Votes: 16 30.8%
  • They can't be compared (explain why)

    Votes: 8 15.4%

  • Total voters
    52
  • #36
Rade said:
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"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
selfAdjoint said:
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".
 
  • #38
Rade said:
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".
 
Last edited:
  • #39
selfAdjoint said:
(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".:eek:--deer elevated to status of politician--would the open seasons overlap do you think ?
 
  • #40
Rade said:
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.
 
  • #41
Rader said:
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.
 
  • #42
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!
 
  • #43
selfAdjoint said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Rade said:
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.
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
daveb said:
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?
 
  • #48
Rader said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
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.:confused: 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...).
 
  • #50
Rade said:
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.
 
  • #51
Rader said:
...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..
No, let me explain my philosophy of morality. All forms of "killing" are not morally wrong, not when morality is held to be an absolute right of the individual human being. Thus, I attack your child with a knife and as I strike and break the skin on the skull you shoot me, your child lives, I die--what immorality is attained from this action of yours ?--none. Why ? Because the absolute right to life of your child is an absolute, and anyone that attempts to take away that right, by their actions, thus forfeits their own right to life.
 
  • #52
Rade said:
No, let me explain my philosophy of morality. All forms of "killing" are not morally wrong, not when morality is held to be an absolute right of the individual human being. Thus, I attack your child with a knife and as I strike and break the skin on the skull you shoot me, your child lives, I die--what immorality is attained from this action of yours ?--none. Why ? Because the absolute right to life of your child is an absolute, and anyone that attempts to take away that right, by their actions, thus forfeits their own right to life.
Then this morality is not absolute because you say there are situations where it IS morally acceptable to kill. You can't say a right to life is morally absolute unless you then say that this is absolute given the condition that it does not interfere with another's right to life. From there, you then have to examine those situations that are "grey" I'm sure if you ask a terrorist, they will say that their, or their children's life is in danger, and believe it.So, in these grey areas, who decides who is right.

That's why killing is absolutely morally wrong in ALL situations, in which case you have adopted an absolutist philosophy, or it is sometimes acceptable, in which case you have adopted a relativist philosophy.
 
  • #53
Rade said:
No, let me explain my philosophy of morality. All forms of "killing" are not morally wrong, not when morality is held to be an absolute right of the individual human being. Thus, I attack your child with a knife and as I strike and break the skin on the skull you shoot me, your child lives, I die--what immorality is attained from this action of yours ?--none. Why ? Because the absolute right to life of your child is an absolute, and anyone that attempts to take away that right, by their actions, thus forfeits their own right to life.

Well thanks for explaining your philosophy clearly. I knew semantics was the culprit again. Although I said OK I agree with your last statement, it is clear that you interpret it one way and I quite another. My philosophy is that killing be it terrorism or assassination are both evil and morally wrong. The problem is that we humans interpret this to suite are own means and call it justice. If my philosophy is correct and morals are absolute, truly absolute, humans one day will not kill for any reason. I now see why you think it was moral to execute Caesar.
 
  • #54
daveb said:
Then this morality is not absolute because you say there are situations where it IS morally acceptable to kill. You can't say a right to life is morally absolute unless you then say that this is absolute given the condition that it does not interfere with another's right to life. From there, you then have to examine those situations that are "grey" I'm sure if you ask a terrorist, they will say that their, or their children's life is in danger, and believe it.So, in these grey areas, who decides who is right.
No, there is only the appearence of contradiction. With moral absolutes, rights can be abrigated. If you intend to take the life of someone else, you abrigate the right to your own life. This is based more on existential phisosophy then traditionalism. Also, the ananlogy you used of a terrorist is faulty, because it doesn't matter what they say or beleive, the end result is the proof of right or wrong. Killing innocent people cannot be justified, because these people have done nothing to abrigate their own rights.

Second, and here the overlapping issues tend to make things appear relativistic, you do not have a right to take the law into your own hands. The government is the embodiement of the people, meant for the sole purpose to protect and support the society it is made of. Under this protection it has the sole right to punish wrongdoers. Therefore, you alone cannot kill someone who murdered your child, only the government has that power. However, if the government is unable to do its duty, such as the case where your child is about to be stabbed, that moral decision defaults to the only place available: you. You then, the only member of society, i.e. the government, have the ability to due its duty, so you have every right to do so. None of this is dependent on variables that cannot be defined; it is an absolute system that works.

I will grant you that there are several reasons to think that absolutism leads to "grey" areas and ends up as relative. However, absolutism is based in every way on the philosophy of dualism, and when ever there are two quantities the posibility of complexity increases exponentialy with everything there is. Consider, 1+1=2, then 2+1=3, and then 3+2=5, etc. With enough overlapping incidents, objects and time even something as simple as dualism can appear so complexly conveluted that it is easy to throw up your hands and declare it to impossible to be real, and adobt relativism.

So, back on topic, this theory of morrality would state that assissination is better, since it is aimed at the person who is causing harm. I would judge it on a case by case scenario though, balancing the actions of the victim against the results of his actions. If someone is actively harming other people, I see no reason why assassination, if it is the only option, should not be taken, since it leads to a greater good, while minimilizing the damage. After all, isn't it better that one guilty man die to improve the lives of others, rather then have innocents killed simply to make a point? That being said, I go back to my second paragraph with the rights of governments and citizens. An act of assassination can never, by inherent nature, fall under the rules of self-defense, so it cannot be placed in the hands of private citizens.
 
  • #55
Dawguard said:
So, back on topic, this theory of morality would state that assassination is better, since it is aimed at the person who is causing harm.
But, as you state, not absolutely better, for the person you assassinate may in fact have done no harm to others. Consider Martin L. King--where lies his harm. Was the assassination of M. L. King "better" than a single terrorist action that just occurred in Irag today ? Perhaps the problem lies with how the OP was worded, it is irrelevant if action x is "better" than y when both x and y are immoral under most conditions.
 
  • #56
Rade said:
But, as you state, not absolutely better, for the person you assassinate may in fact have done no harm to others. Consider Martin L. King--where lies his harm. Was the assassination of M. L. King "better" than a single terrorist action that just occurred in Irag today ? Perhaps the problem lies with how the OP was worded, it is irrelevant if action x is "better" than y when both x and y are immoral under most conditions.
With M.L King, his assassination was not limitted to his death. It sparked off riots that killed several more people, so the end result was not one death, but many. Unless the question is considered in a vacuum, it can be hard to determine the extent of the injury. However, if assassination is defined as killing one person, and terrorism is the indiscriminate murder of several people, the simple size of damage done would make terrorism inherently worse. Also coming into play is the semantics of assassination. Was M. L. King's death a murder, or an assassination? What is the difference between the two, and to which does the question point? I think it needs more clarity by the OP before it can be fully answered.
 
  • #57
daveb said:
Then this morality is not absolute because you say there are situations where it IS morally acceptable to kill. You can't say a right to life is morally absolute unless you then say that this is absolute given the condition that it does not interfere with another's right to life.
There seems to be a little confusion here (not just you, daveb, you just articulated it clearly) about what a "moral absolute" is or what the concept of "moral absolutism" means.

Moral absolutism is simply the concept that moral laws - whatever they are - are applicable everywhere. Ie, that I cannot decide on what is right and wrong for me while you decide what is right and wrong for you. There is only one set of laws and they cover both of us.

Moral absolute/absolutism does not mean that certain general actions are always wrong. Rules and exceptions to those rules can be (and often are) extremely complicated.

Part of the problem here is with the differences between the statements 'the right to life is absolute' and 'the moral code is absolute'. Saying that the right to 'life is absolute' doesn't have anything at all to do with whether the code that right is attached to is an absolutist or relativist code. All it means is that killing is always wrong in that specific code.

Killing is not always wrong in any moral code (that I've heard of, anyway), whether that code is applied absolutely or relatively. In fact, you could have two people accepting two identical codes, with one person believing that the code is absolute/should be applied absolutely and the other believing the code is only for himself and not relevant to anyone else. Murder is a word that means 'unlawful (or immoral) killing', but what exactly constitutes an immoral killing is a difficult question...hence, the specific cases to be discussed in this thread...

Carry on.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
571
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
119
Views
14K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
11K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top