After the Terror

by Ted Honderich

'To be on an airliner and look around and see the people and be able to stick to the plan of flying it into a skyscraper is to be hideous, and to persist if they come to know the plan is to be monstrous.' 'For the 3,000 deaths there are lines of responsibility into the past, as real as chains of command, containing earlier and later perpetrators. We in our democracies are in them, and in particular those of us who have got themselves into our governments.' After The Terror This philosophical and moral reflection describes two worlds - ours of good lives and another of bad lives - and questions our complicity in allowing the bad lives to happen. With what morality are we to think of this? And of September 11th, and about our counter-attack, and what to do now? After the Terror is not moral philosophy detached from reality. It enquires into the 'natural fact' of morality and the worked-out moralities of philosophers. It reaches to the moral core of our lives. Ted Honderich asks why the events of September 11th were wrong and what terrorism tells us about ourselves and our obligations. He does not respect the moral confidence of our leaders and others. He defends a morality of humanity that requires us to think about our lives, and to act up against our democratic governments.

Genres: Philosophy

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Edgar Dawn Ross "Ted" Honderich was a Canadian-born British philosopher, who was Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, University College London.

Reviews

[Daniel Barrows · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honderich argues that Americans, and the victims of the 2001 September 11 attacks, were guilty of causing harm to impoverished people around the world, including the communities which produced the attackers. I'm sympathetic to this claim, although I find Honderich's exposition troublesome and incomplete for several reasons:
1) Honderich doesn't believe in a moral difference between causing harm and failing to act to prevent or alleviate harm. This peculiarity of his ethical framework makes his exposition of moral responsibility less thorough and convincing than I think it could have been.
2) Honderich's expression of American culpability is primarily focused on economics, and neglects American foreign policy actions which have led to
3) Honderich doesn't explore the motivations and rhetoric of Al-Qaeda which could support his thesis. This book gives the impression that the narrative of American culpability is Honderich's own thesis, without exploring how Al-Qaeda and its sympathizers view American culpability.
4) Honderich proceeds to defend terrorism as a response to American culpability without being precise about particular forms of terrorism and the ethical issues particular to each. This imprecision renders this book capable of being used to defend a wide variety of violent actions.

The book deserves perhaps 3 stars. I'm giving Honderich a generous 4 stars because I think his thesis is important. It deserves a better book than this one.

[Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

Post 9-11 book