What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? For example, in South Africa "terrorists" in the full definition of the word were reconsidered as freedom fighters after the regime change. Is it in this case (and in others) characteristic of the academic philosopher profession to simply repeat the view of the status quo?

Comments

If a terrorist is someone who seeks to achieve his goals either by terrorizing innocents or through the threat of such terror and a freedom fighter is someone who is engaged in a struggle to liberate a population from a tyrannical ruler, then some terrorists have been freedom fighters and some have not, and some freedom fighters have failed to be terrorists. If "terrorist" refers to someone who's adopted a particular means and "freedom fighter" characterizes someone on the basis of his goals, then it's only to be expected that such cross-classification will arise.

These definitions are quite coarse, can't be expected to be useful in describing the complexities of real world situations, and also are misleading in encouraging the thought that the technique of terrorizing innocents is one that is primarily adopted by individuals, when arguably the more notable instances of such misdeeds are committed by governments. Political discourse would be clarified if the labels were dropped and we sought to describe matters directly, clearly, honestly. No news here.

In public discourse, to be a "terrorist" is a Bad thing, whereas to be a "freedom fighter" is Good. Consequently, we find that people express their political judgments through use of one term or another. Shifting political judgments can bring in their wake shifts in the code language adopted to express one's approbation or condemnation of events in the political realm. Again, any surprises here?

I have no idea what you're getting at or presupposing in your last paragraph/question.

Read another response by Alexander George

Read another response about Ethics, Justice