The moral issues posed by revolutions are both practically important and theoretically complex.
Because violent revolution poses the most serious and difficult moral issues, it will be the focus of the remainder of the entry.
The morality of nonviolent resistance to political authority is itself sufficiently distinctive, significant and complex to warrant a separate entry.
But these systems were put in place to protect an individual from harm, and protect those individuals’ personal rights. Ross suggests that we have a moral obligation, a “prima facie” duty to “non-maleficence”.
The knowledgeable death of innocents can never be justified. It is our ultimate responsibility to not harm others.
Maybe then, a word other than terrorism should be used in this instance.
Maybe a better word, based on this definition, would be revolution.
The media attention that is derived from the act may or may not be conducive to the terrorists’ objectives.
One may argue that the terrorists are justified in their actions.
In the event that all political means of mediation have been exhausted, and lives of innocent people are threatened or the basic needs of life (food, shelter, sanitation) are deprived, then those individuals would be justified in fighting for self preservation through means of terrorism.
This act of terrorism must be geared towards those responsible with the insurance that no innocent civilian lives are lost.