Abstract
This article begins by comparing terror and death and then focuses on whether killing combatants and noncombatants as a mere means to create terror, that is in turn a means to winning a war, is ever permissible. The role of intentions and alternative acts one might have done is examined in this regard. The second part of the article begins by criticizing a standard justification for causing collateral (side effect) deaths in war and offers an alternative justification that makes use of the idea of group liability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
* This article is a shortened version of my “Failures of Just War Theory: Terror, Harm, and Justice,” Ethics 114 (July 2004), pp. 650–694, with the addition of new material on the use of terror in Section 2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamm, F.M. Terror and Collateral Damage: Are they Permissible?*. J Ethics 9, 381–401 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-3515-z
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-3515-z