Terror and Virtue

ANTHONY READ

With Tokareva’s lecture in mind, discuss Tuman’s conclusion (p. 25) that
States, as well as non-State groups, do terrorism, with it being a blend of
violence, civilian targets and political communication. Then, construct a
syllogism (a 3-step deductive argument) to summarise Robespierre’s idea
that: “Terror is nothing but swift, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore
an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a specific principle as a
consequence of the general principle of democracy as applied to the
homeland’s most pressing needs” (2007, pp. 115).
Tuman, in his work on defining terrorism, struggles to come up with a standard
definition that fits all terrorist acts. He ends up siding with Schmidt’s idea that terror
is a mix of three aspects: violence, civilian targets and political communication
(Reader 2010, pp. 10-26). But the difference that Schmidt realises is this
communication can come from above or below, from state or non-state groups.
Plenty of news focuses on non-state groups committing terrorist acts, but only in the
context of modern culture. The French Revolution is the perfect backdrop to explore
the idea of state-run terror campaigns.

The French Revolution was the first time the word ‘terror’ was used in a positive,
virtuous light. Maximillian Robespierre used the term ‘terror’ to describe the use of
political executions for the furthering of the French nation. His words of “terror is
nothing but swift, severe, inflexible justice” show us that he views these acts as just,
and that terror is therefore “an emanation of virtue” (Robespierre 2007, pp. 115).
Comparing this to modern day warfare, one can see parallels. In the HBO miniseries
Generation Kill (2008), based on journalist Evan Wright’s time spent in an Iraq War
platoon, he sees the ROE (Rules of Engagement) altered for almost every conflict. In
one instance, the colonel decides that all people inside ten kilometres of a particular
enemy airbase are considered to be “enemies” and “are to be engaged”. These
include women and children alike. Is this not a use of violence against possible
civilians for political communication?

Even non-state groups that do not threaten civilians can be considered terrorist. In
Lords of Chaos (2003), Michael Moynihan explains that the black metal scene to
emerge out of Norway could be considered ‘political’ in nature, as they openly burnt
down Christian churches and Christianity as an institution is attacked through their
music. Even though they do not want to harm innocents, their message is delivered
through violent means for political and religious change. This, and the above
example of the Iraq War, blurs the line of what is to be considered terrorism. Maybe
Tuman was onto something when he said terrorism had “no clear consensus”, but
was primarily a “process of communication” (Reader 2010, pp. 25) at its base level.
 Syllogism #1

Terror is swift, severe, inflexible justice.

Justice is held to be a virtuous act.

Therefore terror is an emanation of virtue.

Tuman’s idea of unclear definitions may also explain why we find it hard to create a
clear distillation of what Robespierre means. The first syllogism above is a retelling
of the most contentious points in his address to the French convention. This
syllogism represents Chalmers’ idea of perfect deductive reasoning: “(1) and (2) are
the premises, and (3) is the conclusion” (Reader 2010, pp. 36). It is true that if terror
is just, and justice is virtuous, then terror is a facet of virtue. What the above
syllogism forgets to include is the other ideas in Robespierre’s address, such as
terror being used only in times of upheaval, or that terror is only to be used to serve
the good of the Republic. Also, Chalmers makes the point that these syllogisms do
not constitute facts. They simply are logical deductions from prior statements (2010,
pp. 36). Imagine taking Robespierre’s address to a modern audience. The logical
deductions would pass, yes. But would the argument underneath stand up to
scrutiny? Perhaps another syllogism would shed some light on Robespierre’s words.

Syllogism #2

Terror is swift, severe, inflexible justice.

The guillotine acts in a severe, swift, inflexible manner.

Therefore the guillotine is symbolic of terror and virtue.

Using the first syllogism to flesh out the second, we can see that the guillotine was
used for a specific purpose during the French Revolution. The guillotine, while used
in part to speed up the rate of executions, acts in the mode of terror. It is swift (the
speed of the blade). It is severe (it is virtually impossible to botch a guillotine
execution). It is inflexible (the tracks for the blade make it so). It is a weapon of
terror, and therefore, virtue. Perhaps Robespierre was hinting at this weapon of
terror when he said, “And are not thunderbolts meant to strike vainglorious heads?”
(2007, pp. 115). Or necks in this case?

Because of the terror-inspiring method of the guillotine, no other way of political

execution would have had the same impact, in number and effect. It was so
effective, socially, for two reasons: one, it inspired the people to live as proper
French republicans were supposed to (or die); and two, it inspired terror in the hearts
of their enemies. If the French were willing to kill native Frenchmen that they merely
suspected of anti-nationalist sentiments, what would they do to the actual enemies
of the state? Robespierre alludes to this in another of his statements about the prior
court system: “The slowness of the trials is equivalent to impunity” (2007, pp. 117).
Swift, severe, inflexible justice must be handed out to all enemies of the state,
whether they be merely suspected or already known as enemies. And by using the
first syllogism’s logic, these executions are perfectly virtuous.

Syllogism #3

The general principle of democracy is virtue.

For a democracy to use terror, it must have ‘pressing needs’

which threaten the democracy itself.

Therefore, terror can only grow out of virtue, not the other way

around, and it only appears under exceptionally dangerous

circumstances.

The first two syllogisms are perfectly logical in and of themselves, and are quite
simple to understand. The third syllogism is a little denser, and is not so obvious in
Robespierre’s address. As with all these syllogisms, the third is a natural extension of
Robespierre’s idea of terror being virtuous. It is clear from his address that he
believes terror can only grow out of virtue, for without virtue terror “is powerless”.
He also says terror must be used in time of upheaval and danger, but not in “calm
waters” (2007, pp. 114). But is this a good enough excuse for the quick execution of
suspected ‘enemies’ of the State? Robespierre is taking a teleological stance here:
political executions are allowed for the end result is a strengthening of the French
state.

Compare this to modern times. Governments have painted terrorists and terror cells
as completely unique, in that they have no virtue to grow the arm of terror from.
However, according to Robespierre’s logic, all terrorists must have a base of virtue
from which to grow terror. This would suggest that modern terrorists groups have
virtuous ends to achieve. And according to their perspective, they do. One must not
confuse virtue with democracy or Western values, for there are other political
systems (state and non-state) for which virtue is just as important.

One can see that by using a logical, deductive approach, Robespierre goaded the
French people into believing terror could be used in a righteous way against enemies
of the State. Syllogisms are particularly good at drawing people’s attention,
especially for out-there ideas. However, the issue with this approach to moral
philosophy is that if one step in the syllogism is misconstrued, mishandled, or simply
made up, the entire syllogism is compromised. It still makes logical sense, but the
contents are flawed. Robespierre used the deductive system wisely, but to today’s
political standards, it does not hold up.
Bibliography Anthony Read
Course Reader, pp. 36.

Chalmers A, ‘Logic and Deductive Reasoning’, What is this Thing called Science?
(University of Queensland Press, SP Lucia, 1982).

Generation Kill (HBO, 2008).

Moynihan M & Soderlind D, ‘Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic
Metal Underground’, New Edition (Feral House, 2003).

Robespierre M, ‘On the Principles of Morality that should Guide the National
Convention in the Domestic Administration of the Republic’, Virtue and Terror
(Verso, 2007).

←
←