Terrorism and the ethics of war /

Nathanson's book is driven by the sense that arguments about terrorism often lack moral credibility. They are especially prone to special pleading on behalf of ideology, patriotism, or the cynical relativism that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." Thus, definitions of terrorism need reworking in order to "neutrally" define and then pick out what is morally objectionable about the phenomenon. Nathanson (Northeastern Univ.) pleads for greater consistency in applying the term for the sake of moral credibility. (One must, for instance, take a more uncompromising stance on so-called "collateral casualties" in war than in the traditional just war notion of double effect or in Walzer's theory of "supreme emergency.") Here Nathanson retreads some well-worn ground in the contemporary literature. His main innovation is to ground an unconditional right of noncombatant immunity in a rule-utilitarian paradigm, for which he offers a fair defense. Clear, comprehensible, and thorough, this volume is also a personal work, showing a philosopher passionately going about the nuts-and-bolts work of argument and analysis on a contentious subject. Summing Up: Recommended. Lower-level undergraduates and above; general readers. S. D. Lake Trinity Christian College