A Transdisciplinary Exploration of Terrorism: Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience

Introduction

Analysis of the question

This meaningful question has several interrelated clauses, which add further nuances to a philosophical discussion. Before answering “correct” or “incorrect”, breaking down the question may help bring philosophical conversation to a broader context. By inference, the question implies three claims:

1. Intentionally targeting citizens is terrorism.

2. There’s no need to consider the cause of terrorism.

3. Terrorism is evil.

Definition of important terms and the discussion scope of the essay

These claims are heavily involved with morally complex yet vague terms: terrorism and evil. Nonetheless, a thorough ethical analysis requires precise definitions.

According to the military definition, terrorism is “the deliberate use of violence by non-state actors against civilians to achieve political, ideological, or social goals”. In contrast, the moral definition asserts that “terrorism involves intentionally harming civilians to instill fear, making no distinction between legitimate combatants and non-combatants”. Both definitions highlight that terrorism involves deliberate attacks against civilians or non-combatants, who are considered illegal targets of military actions according to International Humanitarian Law (1949). Therefore, the first claim above is considered valid. On the other hand, the military definition limits terrorists to only non-state terrorist groups, and the moral definition emphasizes the manipulation of anxiety and fear, scaring the population to disrupt morale, thereby gaining advantages in negotiation and avoiding large-scale battle. Following the military definition above, this essay will discuss non-state terrorism to prevent overgeneralization, thus excluding state terrorism and unjust wars.

Another term to clarify is “evil”. There are two influential approaches in ethics that I will focus on for the duration of this paper: moral absolutism and moral consequentialism. Two approaches have different criteria for what is evil, which are worth elaborating on in the next part of the essay. Therefore, the essay will primarily focus on analyzing the second and third claims listed above.

Thesis

While intentionally harming civilians is morally reprehensible in terms of moral absolutist and consequentialist perspectives, merely identifying and condemning terrorism as evil risks oversimplifying its complex nature and hinders further inquiry into its motivation and root causes, which is essential to addressing terrorism.

Moral Analysis of Typical Terrorist Attacks

The case of the September 11 attacks

Following the US military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and support for Israel against Lebanon and Palestine, the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, hijacked four commercial airplanes to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, claiming 2,996 lives in total. This attack is regarded as one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in history.

The moral absolutist approach and the Kantian ethics

Moral absolutism upholds that “evil refers to actions inherently and universally wrong, violating fundamental moral laws or human dignity”. While both perspectives stress human dignity irrespective of the consequences, moral absolutism considers terrorism as immoral because it deliberately harms innocents, based on either religious principles, moral intuition, or natural law. As demonstrated by a typical moral absolutist, “the prohibition against intentionally killing the innocent is absolute and exceptionless... because intentionally killing the innocent is always and everywhere contrary to the intrinsic human good of life.” (Finnis, 1980)

Instead of referencing intrinsic moral laws, Kantian ethics relies on the categorical imperative, which emphasizes the universality of moral duties and the importance of intention. According to Kant’s words, “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 1785/1998) If violence or terrorism are justified as a universal strategy, social order, mutual respect, and most widely accepted written laws would be broken. Furthermore, terrorism implies treating human beings as tools to advance specific political goals rather than respecting intrinsic human dignity and autonomy. This is particularly demonstrated in the 9/11 suicidal attacks, where both hijackers and the airplanes with passengers were killed. Therefore, terrorism is not only morally unjustified but also destructive in undermining the moral foundations of human society.

The moral consequentialist approach

Unlike both moral absolutism and Kantian ethics, the moral consequentialist approach focuses on the outcomes of actions as its criteria for moral judgment. It argues that “evil is an action whose foreseeable harm vastly outweighs any conceivable benefit”. Utilitarianism, a typical form of moral consequentialism, evaluates morality based on the amount of happiness generated and the number of people benefited by an action. In the case of September 11, it is important to

acknowledge that terrorist attacks might offer some advantages, even though critics reasonably argue that the severe harms far outweigh any benefits. After 9/11, media across the globe covered the US foreign policies in the Middle East (presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, sanctions on Iraq, etc.), and the Israel-Palestine conflict. These extensive media reports raise global public awareness on and debate about Western foreign policies. Although the increase in public interest in the Islamic-Western relationship does not directly lead to advantages, such as fewer grievances and more peaceful diplomacy, the global spotlight can still spur critical reflections, which are crucial to addressing the strained relations and violence between both sides.

However, in contrast to the relatively indirect benefits, the 9/11 attack directly led to severe harms in various aspects. Immediately after the terrorist attack, it caused economic damages of over 80 to 100 billion (OECD, 2002). In the long run, the US response to the threat of terrorism, such as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has cost over an astonishing 6 trillion. These significant costs can fund various beneficial domestic programs and international aid, which will achieve greater good through reducing poverty, improving sanitation, education, and even social welfare, if the US is not subjected to terrorist attacks. On the other side, the Muslim population also suffers from extensive economic loss, such as reduced tourism, investment, and trade, due to the decrease in security following the Islamic extremist attacks.

Moreover, the profound harm caused by the 9/11 attacks is far beyond economic damages. Psychological research has demonstrated increased levels of generalized anxiety, depressive symptoms, and panic attacks following extremist attacks, significantly undermining the mental health and well-being of a large population. Even more serious is that findings indicate not only survivors and witnesses but also the distant US population exposed through media suffer from an increasing rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a mental health condition featured by nightmares, severe anxiety, and emotional numbness.

In addition, terrorist attacks have lasting social implications beyond widespread traumatization. Studies reveal that repeated exposure to traumatic events, such as terrorist attacks, leads to desensitization to violence, which refers to decreased emotional responsiveness and normalizing fear and violence (in short, becoming numb or indifferent to violence). The resulting loss of empathy and moral sensitivity, along with the indiscriminate, violent nature of extremist attacks, prompts the targeted population to perceive serious threats to their survival, or even a life-or-death battle under the perceived possibility of being victims of genocide, fostering hostility and eroding moral restraints. As a result, when terrorist attacks threaten their opponents and seriously abuse human rights, innocents may begin to view violence as justified, or at least necessary, survival tactics rather than moral transgressions. The impact of heightened tensions and erosion of empathy is profound and lasting: the US responded with an invasion of Iraq, causing widespread regional instability; diplomatic relationships between both sides deteriorated; more importantly, terrorism

backfires, ultimately fueling anti-Muslim sentiments globally, escalating conflicts, and intensifying destructive cycles. The severe harm of terrorism will significantly eclipse any perceived benefits.

Rebuttal from structural violence and the power of situation

Nevertheless, any actions, whether justified or evil, do not arise out of an absolute vacuum. Without an in-depth understanding, any analysis or judgment of the morality of terrorism would risk being little more than reasonable labeling. Exploring the broader context in which terrorism propagates and thrives may offer insights into its underlying causes.

The rise of terrorism is partially attributed to factors such as international politics and complex security concerns. Although many of these purposes and security concerns are arguably justified, the unintended effects are likely contributing to the growth of terrorism. During the Cold War, the US, specifically the CIA, countered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by covertly supporting Islamic guerrilla fighters (Mujahideen) in the 1980s, as part of the containment policy. The CIA-funded programs not only provide military training but also extensive ideological indoctrination, inadvertently benefiting radical Muslims, including Osama bin Laden and future Taliban leaders, and spreading violent extremist ideologies.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the US-led United Nations imposed economic sanctions against Iraq to undermine Saddam Hussein’s regime. Initially aiming at preventing aggression and fostering regional stability, the economic sanctions unintendedly led to widespread civilian suffering. According to UNICEF estimates, approximately 500,000 Iraqi children died due to malnutrition and lack of medical care. In 2003, the Bush administration invaded Iraq for having Weapons of Mass Destruction and possibly relating to terrorism, inadvertently resulting in severe political instability, which provided fertile ground for the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS. After the occupation, Iraqis suffered from a youth unemployment rate of over 36 percent, according to the World Bank statistics in 2014. Similarly, Afghans experienced a severe poverty rate of 40 percent (World Bank, 2021), destroyed governance, limited educational infrastructure, and a poor literacy rate of 43 percent (UNESCO, 2021), after the US and Soviet withdrawal.

As a result, a large Muslim population is subjected to a lack of economic and educational opportunities, and even physical violence due to political instability. Without access to work, health care, and security, their basic human rights are denied. Under these harsh conditions, many Muslims have only limited skills and information, leading to severely constrained available choices. Furthermore, scholarly studies demonstrate that prolonged exposure to violence and humiliation induces chronic stress responses, over-activating the amygdala and therefore impairing the development of the prefrontal cortex, which is crucial to impulse control, future

planning, and moral decision-making (Steinberg, 2008; Arnsten, 2009). As these impoverished Muslims struggle to deal with emotionally driven impulses, their stress-impaired brain functions, under the hardship of making a living, render them particularly susceptible to the appeal of stable income, relative security, perceived sense of respect (Maslow, 1943), social belonging, and simplified yet powerful religious purposes provided, or at least indoctrinated, by influential and “charismatic” extremist authorities, like Bin Laden (Victoroff, 2005). Even though they may likely admit that joining extremist groups is evil and may ultimately kill them, they are still strongly influenced by the peer norms of following extremist ideology and groups (Asch, 1955), and modeling themselves on admired figures (Bandura, 1977). In addition, tangible social rewards and overly simplified anti-US narratives, or any similar indoctrinations attributing Western policies to hostility towards Muslims, are effectively exploited by extremist groups to produce a disproportionally strong sense of fulfillment and a powerful outlet for Muslims emotionally ridden with grievances and perceived oppression. Although poor Muslims are considered full moral agents with inherent dignity regardless of circumstances by moral perspectives like Kantian ethics, they may find it incredibly difficult to make informed moral decisions with stress-impaired prefrontal cortex functions, under severe hardships, duress, and limited alternatives.

Conclusion and Significance of Understanding Root Causes

While the proposed root causes are never an excuse for terrorism, they may help explain why it becomes powerful, revealing that its nature is more nuanced than evil, and suggesting that understanding them may offer insights into addressing terrorism. Although factors such as economic hardship and physical insecurity are not universal in terrorism, empirical studies demonstrate that these situational factors play a significant role in diverse terrorist recruitment from the Middle East and Africa. Therefore, aiding deprived, insecure communities is likely more urgent than military campaigns in countering terrorism. Lastly, empathy and understanding would not obscure, but enrich, the moral analysis of evil or righteousness.

References

Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). "Stress Signalling Pathways That Impair Prefrontal Cortex Structure and Function." Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2648

Asch, S. E. (1955). "Opinions and Social Pressure." Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Botha, A., & Abdile, M. (2014). Radicalisation and al-Shabaab Recruitment in Somalia. Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Paper No. 266. Pretoria, South Africa: ISS. https://issafrica.org/research/papers/radicalisation-and-al-shabaab-recruitment-in-somalia

Bhatia, K., & Ghanem, H. (2017). How Do Education and Unemployment Affect Support for Violent Extremism? Evidence from Eight Arab Countries. Brookings Institution, Global Economy and Development Working Paper 102.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/global_20170322_violent-extremism.pdf

Finnis, J. (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford University Press.

International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Conventions, 1949). International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf

Kant, I. (1785/1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (Mary Gregor, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Krueger, A. B., & Malečková, J. (2003). “Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(4), 119–144. DOI: 10.1257/089533003772034925

Maslow, A. H. (1943). "A Theory of Human Motivation." Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. DOI: 10.1037/h0054346

Milgram, S. (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. DOI: 10.1037/h0040525

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002). The Economic Consequences of Terrorism. OECD Economic Outlook, Vol. 2002/2. DOI:

10.1787/eco_outlook-v2002-2-en

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022). "The Concept of Evil." Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022). "Terrorism." Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/

Steinberg, L. (2008). "A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking." Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

Strathearn, L., Li, J., Fonagy, P., & Montague, P. R. (2008). "What's in a Smile? Maternal Brain Responses to Infant Facial Cues." Pediatrics, 122(1), 40–51. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-1566

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 217 A(III). https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

UNICEF. (1999). "Iraq Surveys Show ‘Humanitarian Emergency’." UNICEF Press Release CF/DOC/PR/1999/29. https://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

Victoroff, J. (2005). "The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches." Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(1), 3–42. DOI: 10.1177/0022002704272040

Wikipedia Contributors. (2024). "September 11 Attacks." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

World Bank. (2021). "Afghanistan Development Update." Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/afghanistan/publication/afghanistan-development-update