Philosophical Complexity

The Philosophical Complexity of Terrorism and Why it Matters Terrorism is one of the most pressing issues in today’s world. The random violence various extremist groups carry out causes widespread fear not just in individual nations, but internationally. For example, recently a group named the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seems to be the most active. The group is actively fighting to establish state of Sharia Law (a form of Islamic Law) in Syria and other areas surrounding it. However, the group has carried out devastating attacks in various places around the world, including Paris, France and Brussels, Belgium. ISIS and terrorism in general no doubt are serious problems that need to be address. However, several philosophical complexities …show more content…
He draws the line between people who provide goods and services the soldiers need to fight and those who provide goods and services the soldiers need to live. Essentially, he makes a distinction between people who work in a munitions factory and people who are providing the soldiers with food. While Waltzer draws the line there, he believes more provisions apply. He states that the people who belong to the class of individuals providing for the soldiers basic needs are innocent people because “they have done nothing and are doing nothing that entails the loss of their rights.” Waltzer believes that if a non-soldier who is contributing to the fighting is going to be attacked they need to be actively engaged in the activities that pose a threat. For instance, the munitions factory worker needs to be at the factory working if they are going to be attacked. He extends the provisions even farther and states those individuals should not be attacked if the threat they pose can be addressed in any other way. It is clear that Waltzer wanted individuals who were not soldiers to be more protected, even though he made the claim that they can be attacked in certain instances. Overall, Waltzer draws the line and has soldiers and non-soldiers who directly provide for the fighting in the category of combatant and individuals who provide for soldiers basic needs and those who are no way …show more content…
His distinctions between the two groups revolves defining innocent as “currently harmless.” Nagel makes his distinction between the two groups based on whether an individual is posing an immediate threat. As with Waltzer’s perspective, that criteria seems to place individuals who do not appear to be involved in a war firmly in the noncombatant list. However, Nagel also admits that individuals who contribute to the war effort while not being soldiers are problematic. He seems to assert that individuals who only provided for soldiers basic needs such as an army cook are not combatants, while munitions factory workers who are providing for fighting aspect of a war could be consider combatants as there are times when they could possibly posing an immediate threat. Ultimately, Nagel and Waltzer make very similar distinctions, however, by having his distinctions revolve around whether an individual is currently posing an immediate threat; Nagel seems to put down a firmer