Terrorism: A Moral Economy

Why do we regard one act of civilian targeting as morally worse than the other? This argumentative analysis argues that moral judgment requires more than the fact of civilian harm; it depends on how and why such harm occurs. Drawing on Alex Schmid’s definition of terrorism as a communicative method of violence, the paper examines two factors essential to moral evaluation: rationale (the motives and foreseeable consequences underlying an act) and justification (whether civilian harm can be defended within a coherent ethical framework). Beyond its moral and political dimensions, terrorism also functions within an economic logic. States and non-state actors allocate resources and impose costs on adversaries. Incorporating this “moral economy of violence” clarifies how civilian targeting manipulates economic vulnerabilities for political ends. Thus, labeling all civilian harm as evil without regard to cause is ethically irresponsible. True moral judgment must rest on both rationale and justification.