Ethics

During The Troubles the IRA would sometimes make a telephone warning beforehand prior to exploding a bomb. Even if the authorities are unable to evacuate every person in time resulting in a single digit death toll, does this make them less guilty or immoral than al-Qaeda according to virtue ethics?

Comments

Great question. As a small point at the outset, I think that both the IRA bombing and the bombing by al-Qaeda are equally wrong, and wrong in targeting the military as well as civilians. Neither cause amounts (in my view) to justified use of violence, and the bombing seems senseless not just ethically but given the strategic aims of the IRA and al-Qaeda. In both cases, it seems there is evidence that The Troubles would have ended earlier if non-violent means were used, and the same for the use of terror by al-Qaeda. But there is some ethical difference in the two cases. If the IRA phone call was made so late, that there was no way to evacuate anyone, the cases are identical. But if the IRA's call was made to insure (or make unlikely) that lives would be lost and so the bombing would only destroy property, then such a practice seems less cruel than bombers who intend and take every step to wound or kill others. In fact, given the strategic ends of al-Qaeda, they may be motivated to call in false bomb threats that would maximize loss of life. For example, phoning in a warning that building X will explode at noon, may lead to persons escaping and seeking refuge in building Y where the real bombs are set to go off.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Ethics