Category: Social Issues

Should freedom of speech be protected no matter the cost?

Singapore has always been criticised for the lack of freedom of speech, being notorious for its many instances of punishing citizens who have expressed openly some opinions that others may find displeasing. To have freedom of speech is to be able to express one’s own opinions and viewpoints, no matter how offensive, at one’s own will without facing any lawful consequences. To protect freedom of speech would be to uphold and to advocate it. Some possible consequences or the cost of protecting freedom of speech include potential conflicts and disharmony between the parties involved – the perpetrator and the victim, some that may even escalate to physical violence. Freedom of speech should be protected to uphold basic human rights, but in racially and religiously diverse societies, the cost may outweigh the benefits of restricted speech. Additionally, with interconnectivity and technological advances, there is a risk of greater backlash. In my view, freedom of speech should not be completely protected.

Freedom of speech should be protected and advocated to preserve and uphold human rights, which should come first in terms of importance above all else. As in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as drawn up by the United Nations, every individual should have the right to express their views and opinions. It should be respected that every individual is entitled to their own views and opinions and to freely communicate them. Considering that freedom of speech is a basic human right, it should definitely be of utmost importance, despite the potential impact or cost these views and opinions may bring. Many people, especially those in the West, advocate freedom of speech. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting incident in 2015 where journalists were killed in an act of vengeance by Al-Qaeda terrorists over the publishing of a comic containing offensive material that could hurt the Muslim community, family and friends had shown support for the protection of freedom of speech. This was significant as in the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” or “I Am Charlie” where many stood in solidarity with the French magazine and emphasised their support for freedom of speech despite the cost – the numerous lives lost as a result of the terrorists’ resentment of the journalists. As evident from this incident, many are of the opinion that the basic human right of freedom of speech should be upheld above all else, despite the costs in the aftermath.

In racially and religiously diverse societies, however, it may be too costly to grant absolute freedom of speech to all individuals. In societies made up of many individuals of different cultures, ethnicities and even nationalities, the offensive opinions of some may hurt the feelings of the victims or others that may disagree with the opinion. This may bring about conflict between the groups involved, resulting in disharmony among the people. This would be extremely harmful when larger groups of people are involved, such as the large racial majority of a certain society. In order to maintain harmony in an extremely diverse society, Singapore’s law includes the Sedition Act that allows individuals who release potentially offensive and sensitive material that may harm the feelings of certain groups or individuals to be charged and dealt with by the court. This Act has been subjected to criticism globally especially by groups and organisations that support the freedom of speech. Amos Yee, a 17-year-old teenager who had sparked debate for his offensive videos insulting Christianity and the nation’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has been facing charges under the Sedition Act. The imprisonment of Amos Yee had gained international attention, where organisations like Amnesty International criticised the country’s lack of freedom of speech, and even students in Hong Kong had protested and demanded his release. The cost of freedom of speech is deemed to be too much for the Singapore government, citing disharmony among the people to be a major detrimental consequence. The success of the restriction of freedom of speech is as evident in the low number of racially or religiously-driven crime, and the ability of the people to live together in harmony despite their differences. This is significant as in other countries, Islamophobia is rampant, while in Singapore, racism is relatively minimal. Islamophobia in other countries such as the United States has brought about great displeasure and disharmony among the people of diverse groups, with many terrorist attacks being motivated by their differences as brought to light by openly expressed racism and discrimination. As such, the costs may be too overbearing, making the restriction of freedom of speech more crucial.

Especially with globalisation where people of different cultures are often being brought together, being sensitive to one another’s differences would be crucial to the harmony of society. In countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, the society is made up of people of many different ethnicities, making mutual respect more significant and important. Freedom of speech may potentially harm the peace of the country. Additionally, with the extensive use of the Internet and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, people tend to express their opinions online. Such opinions may have a great reach as anyone with access to the Internet despite being on the other side of the globe would be able to view and respond to such opinions both positively and negatively. The cost is that there may not be only domestic conflict, but also an international conflict that may be potentially destructive to political harmony and peace among countries. Hence the restriction of freedom of speech is crucial. While the costs of freedom of speech may be hefty, it should not be completely restricted. People should be entitled to their opinions, but to verbalise them especially if they are sensitive could be harmful. There are of course benefits to the freedom of speech such as offering alternative viewpoints that may well be absent especially in authoritarian regimes. In my opinion, however, the freedom of being able to have a peace of mind and to feel respected in society triumphs over freedom of speech as freedom of speech can often twist views and opinions to become offensive, making misunderstandings extremely common. With certain restrictions placed on speech freedom, there will be greater peace and unity for all. Freedom of speech hence should be protected only to a small extent due to the great consequences and impact it may bring.

‘Environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation, should be the priority of developing countries.’ Comment.

Environmental problems, as well as poverty, exist in many developing countries. Environmental problems such as pollution and exploitation of scarce resources may exist due to the country’s desire to advance economically so as to alleviate poverty. Some may say that environment conservation can deprive a country financially and that the funds can be used to eradicate poverty instead. But, by conserving the environment, people in developing countries can be lifted out of poverty as well. Furthermore, the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. Thus, environmental conservation should be the priority of developing countries as it can benefit them in the long run and also, likely bring about monetary benefits and reduce poverty.

Admittedly, environmental conservation requires large amounts of funds which can be used for poverty alleviation through means such as subsidising education. Environmental conservation usually involves the transition from coal-produced electricity and usage of fossil fuels to renewable and clean energy. The use of renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy and hydroelectric energy can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions which can help slow down global warming as well as the depletion of the ozone layer. However, the transition to clean energy comes with a huge price. At the 2010 Copenhagen consensus, the UN and World Bank mentioned that the conversion from coal-produced electricity to clean energy requires US$100 billion at least, which is more than 10 times of what most countries’ governments are investing in clean energy now. Electricity from wind power, for example, cost two times more than electricity produced from coal. This is often due to the need to construct direct current lines to transport the electricity as well as storage for energy. Thus, developing countries may be unable to afford to convert to cleaner energy due to the high costs. On top of that, money spent on environmental conservation comes with an opportunity cost as well. The money, arguably, can be used to subsidise education. This can allow more financially disadvantaged children to attend school and thus increase their employability and lift themselves out of poverty in the near future. Education on birth control can also reduce family sizes, which is a factor that often worsens a family’s financial situation due to the need to bring up more children. Undeniably, spending on education can have benefits on poverty alleviation. However, developing countries often lack the funds to do so. Thus, developing countries can possibly use environmental conservation as a stepping stone to eradicate poverty in the long run.

Environmental conservation should be the priority of developing nations as it can help countries to reduce poverty in the long run. In less developed countries, ecotourism is a common way to generate income and thus it is a thriving industry in many less developed countries. For example, countries such as Costa Rica and Kenya, engage in ecotourism and this industry has generated many jobs for locals. This is especially helpful for the locals as many are trapped in poverty and thus are largely uneducated. For instance, local fishermen are often hired by tourists to bring them out to sea for the purpose of ecotourism. Thus, this generates income for the locals who are living in poverty. Additionally, this also creates revenue for the government which can be used to help the poor through the form of subsidies or food aid, provided that the government is not corrupt and hence will use the money to improve the lives of its citizens. Also, the government can use the money to conserve the environment and they are incentivised to do so as by preserving the environment, the country can attract more tourists for ecotourism. Hence, it is evident that environmental conservation can bring economic benefits to developing countries and the wise use of the money generated from it can benefit the poor.

However, by having environmental conservation as the most important goal of a developing country, instead of alleviating poverty, it can also worsen poverty by causing locals to lose their jobs. Although clean energy is known as clean energy, they are not actually “clean”. All forms of energy, including renewable ones, have some form of impact on the environment. For example, biofuels can cause deforestation and hydroelectric energy can cause changes to the landscape. All of these can potentially worsen locals’ lives. In Uganda, ecotourism is a prosperous industry. Many locals are employed in that industry and thus, it is very important as it feeds a large proportion of the locals. The government is also actively engaged in the conservation of the environment. Hence, dams were built to provide hydroelectric energy to the locals, which is clean and allows the country to shift from coal-produced electricity to clean hydroelectric energy. However, the construction of dams, one of which is the Bengali Dam, disrupted the flow of the river, which has a negative impact on the ecotourism industry. Many locals who bring tourists for kayaking and rafting are affected as tourism reduced after the construction of the dams. Thus, this proves that the conservation of the environment has its downside too. However, damages can be mitigated as new jobs will be created as well, following the construction of the dams and locals who are out of a job can work at hydroelectric energy plants. The government can also try to mitigate damages and preserve the ecotourism industry so that poverty is not aggravated in the pursuit of environmental conservation which can eventually eliminate poverty.

It is important that environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation should be the priority of developing countries as the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. In the pursuit of economic development, many countries are willing to sacrifice their environment so as to prosper. China is one such example, China is burdened with air and water pollution due to its rapid growth in the recent decade. In 2013, New York-based Blacksmith Institute even ranked Linfen, a China city, alongside Chernobyl on the list of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world. Furthermore, emerging economies such as India and China are rising up the list of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters with China being first and India being fourth. This is evident that several developing countries caused harm to their environment for economic benefits. However, while this degradation of the environment can lead to prosperity in certain developing countries, it may also worsen poverty in some other developing countries. In Nigeria, the transnational company, Shell, has caused damages to its environment which also affected the livelihood of many locals, rendering them helpless financially. The production plants of Shell have caused fires which burnt croplands. This reduced farmers’ crop yield and destroyed their croplands which cause them to lose their tool to generate income. The production plants have also resulted in oil spills which polluted rivers and ponds. This also caused fishermen to lose their rice bowls and thus are unable to make a living which further worsens their financial status. On top of that, locals affected are not compensated for their loss. The corrupt government also further worsens the situation as they prioritised the economic benefits that Shell brought to Nigeria by building oil production plants there. Thus, there are lax or no environmental laws or rules that Shell has to abide by, allowing them to cause damages to the environment. Hence, measures or laws have to be put in place to conserve the environment so as to not worsen the financial state of locals. Due to the corrupt government, foreign presence such as the United Nations may be needed to protect the environment as well as not worsen the poverty in developing nations.

In conclusion, developing nations should prioritize the conservation of the environment instead of alleviating poverty. The conservation of the environment may be costly, but there exist many protocols which developing nations can take part in and receive help from stronger nations or agencies. For example, the Montreal Protocol which provides funds to needy developing countries. In the long run, environmental conservation will affect poverty positively as it can generate jobs as well as provide the government with funds to improve the citizens’ lives and lift them out of poverty. Since solving environmental issues can have benefits on alleviating poverty, developing countries should prioritise it to benefit their people.

‘A good leader should always be popular’. How far do you agree with this statement?

The concept of a well-like leader has probably never been concretely established such that everyone can agree with it. History has seen many leaders revolutionised the world with their set of beliefs, be it good or bad, and thus not everyone has the same perception of a leader. However, in more recent times, we have seen heads-of-state and premiers with their fair share of proponents and opponents around the world, therefore bringing up the question of whether good leaders should always be popular. Many believe that popular leaders are definitely better for our society but others do think that leadership is amoral in nature. While both sides of the contention have validity, I believe that a good leader should always be popular mainly due to the fact that their influence can transcend geographical boundaries.

Detractors of my stand argue that it is important to go back to the reasons why leaders are elected in the first place; to the governor to inspire a group of individuals to specific goals. Such opponents adopt the pragmatic view of leadership and believe that above all, good leaders ‘get the job done’ efficiently, and therefore it is inconsequential whether or not their people or colleagues admire them. By a simple definition of a leader, my opponents believe in leaders serving their purpose first, as people may support politicians who are true, bad. A converse of this, however, is the incumbent Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who with his strong anti-corruption and crime rhetoric, is making headlines. Famously nicknamed ‘The Punisher’, Duterte has been slammed by leaders around the world for his extra-judicial killings. However, from another viewpoint, he is a hero in the eyes of a local contingent for his low tolerance of corruption, which would see the Philippines progress as a country. While his actions are condoned by many, people do believe that he is moving his country in the right direction. To the pragmatics, doing right is better than what is popular.

This claim is no doubt valid and does show a reflection of the beliefs of a practical audience. However, I opine that doing what is right is not the only purpose of a leader. Being ruthless even for a supposedly good cause, like how Duterte does, has its repercussions. Such aggressive approaches can lead to hostility and political uproar initiated by the public. This was evident in Libya in 2011, during which a political rebellion led to the end of the reign of Muammar Gaddafi. From this, we learn that gaining the approval of the people is important, and support is crucial. Rodrigo Duterte is at large due to the fact that he is well-supported but may see an end similar to Gaddafi is he angers his people as well. With popularity, comes power.

Astute leaders should be popular as the combination of good leadership and the public vote has the potential to unify a society. Good leaders are, of course, venerated by many across the planet, but popular leaders have the power of influencing their people as well. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is arguably one of the most renowned and favourite world leaders of many today. In the wake of neighbouring head-of-state Donald Trump’s stance against Muslims, Trudeau has publicly announced his respect and acceptance of immigrants of different ethnicities. At the same time, he was seen dancing along to Indian music and giving intellectual discussions, making him a favourite and a common topic of discussion amongst Canadians. This goes to show how a popular leader can get his country buzzing about politics and life under his leadership. In a so-called ‘angry place’, good and popular leaders are the beacon of light that motivates millions around the world to believe that the world can be a happy place. They bring in a new air of positivity that stimulates optimism and the best in individuals. While there are many examples of good leaders, the people’s leaders leave more profound impacts on the world, as illustrated by former actor-turned USA President Ronald Reagan who chose to be positive while dealing with the threat of the USSR.

From a socio-economic perspective, good leaders ought to be popular in their quest of seeking cooperation with other countries and governing bodies. A popular leader firstly gains the support of the country, making his or her nation stronger through social cohesion. Secondly, a leader who can make a positive mark around the world prompts other countries to seek partnerships. Thus, the influence of a popular leader has worldwide can lead to greater economic cooperation. Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew is respected by many for the robust fortress he moulded Singapore into, which has seen great economic growth in the country. His popularity in Singapore made him a potential ally to many other countries like China. Thus, there is a solid advantage for a good leader to be popular in that, in a world of distrust and rapid globalisation, economic benefits can be reaped.

Additionally, popular leaders make the foundation of a strong political society that is immune to internal conflict. As popular leaders resonate with their people and share their voice, they can help solidify the political foundations in their country, giving her people contentment and no reason to rebel. Nations such as Bashar Al Assad’s Syria and, back in time, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya have been on the receiving end of the spectrum. It may take a new leader, in Syria’s case, to rid the nation of political insecurity and fear instilled in the people.

In a nutshell, there are several social, political and economic reasons for a great leader to be in sync with his or her people’s beliefs. However, it is paramount for leaders to be popular for the right reasons as the inspirational Martin Luther King and the draconian Josef Stalin have shown. In line with Jeremy Bentham’s belief of consequentialism, it is essential for the leaders of today to possess the blend of doing what is right for the greater good, hearing and acting on the public’s concern and of course being the moral compass for the world to follow.

Do you agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation?

The United States of America is the shining beacon and bastion of liberal democracy and has successfully exported this very ideology to most countries around the world who chose freedom of expression instead of oppression as their way of governance. The freedom of expression is said to propel a country to its heyday through the progress of all aspects of the country, be it political, social, cultural and technological aspects. This is because it gives people the opportunity to share opinions, think out of the box and work towards the progress of a nation. This is evidenced by how civilised and well-perceived countries are when they subscribe to freedom of expression, like the US and the Scandinavian countries. However, underneath the veneer of its merits, some incidents that have come to the fore recently strengthens the validity of this notion that the freedom of expression actually hinders the progress of a nation. Nonetheless, I beg to differ. It does not hinder the progress of a nation, so long as it is regulated.

Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress because it brings about a more vibrant culture by rehabbing a country’s cultural scene. As cultures provide a country with a sense of identity and its citizens, a sense of belonging, freedom of expression serves as a vehicle to forge these important traits at a time when the westernisation of countries have started to amalgamate cultures into a homogenous one. It allows for artists and creative people to illustrate or express the country’s’ roots, way of life and thinking without prosecution. This is crucial for a country to make cultural progress because possessing a vibrant culture strengthens the social fabric of a country and fills them with pride and motivation to help the country progress. For example, the freedom of expression has enabled the publishing of literature like ‘Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry’ and ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ which reflects on America’s wretched past on racial inequality. These works allow citizens to better understand their country’s roots and learn from mistakes of the past so that they become responsible citizens. On the other hand, if a country curbs freedom of expression, it will most certainly hinder its progress, as seen from the consequences of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, where the teachings of renowned scholars, religions and people who preach them have been purged. This resulted in the majority of the population, unable to generate significant cultural progress because they have been indoctrinated and have not been given the freedom to express the right to practice proper moral values. Despite its rich cultural heritage, the Cultural Revolution brought about by draconian restrictions on the freedom of expression has had China regressed culturally. America however, has matured into becoming a more civilized society with a vibrant culture, proof that the freedom of expression leaders to the progress of a nation.

I do not agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation because of engenders technological innovation and progress. It lets innovations thrive because new concepts and schools of thought can be created for the betterment of countries. Taking these concepts further is the improvement in technology to solve the world’s problems and safeguard nations. It is only through the freedom of expression can scientists save lives with stem cell research and the 3-D printing of organs because they are backed by no boundaries to experiment. Through these experiments, new ideas and improvements could be made. Scientists can also solve hunger by creating GM food, which genetically alters the genes to make crops more resistant to diseases. This increases crop yield such that it is hoped that it could meet the quickly escalating demand for food as the world population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. Furthermore, the freedom of expression also gives rise to a nation’s military progress, allowing it to safeguard its borders. A country’s productivity, infrastructure and various interests can only be protected if there is a competent military to deter aggressors. Freedom of expression lets engineers developed advanced military technologies like stealth, cruise missiles, drones and laser weapons never before accomplished. These advanced technologies allow for a military to gain unparalleled situational awareness on the battlefield through information sharing and therefore, more potent warfighting capabilities. Not only will military technologies increase survivability, but it can also protect a nation’s borders through deterrence. All this progress can only be achieved if the freedom of expression was in place to bring about, and not hinder, progress.

The freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation because it ensures that the political situation is uncorrupted and that the government can be kept in checking such that it serves its citizens well. It forms the bedrock of a country’s progress. By having a free press, leaders who commit wrongdoings can be held accountable as seen by the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun Hye, whose confidant’s meddling with state affairs has seen her political career unravelling into shambles. This is only possible and the freedom of expression creates windows of opportunity to do research and dig deep for information to expose wrongdoings. By exposing corrupt leaders can new, more righteous ones be elected. The country can then progress politically. Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress insofar that citizens can provide feedback and air with their discontentment through dialogues and online forums. Governors and diplomats, are after all, also human and will make mistakes. Some governments may be blindsided to certain issues and when this happens, it is a citizen’s responsibility to express his opinions so that their governments can correct policies to allow a nation’s progress.

Alas, events of recent times have juxtaposed with my stand that the freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation, especially in a social aspect. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, where Al-Qaeda terrorists struck the offices of a satirical cartoon magazine who drew derogatory depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the Muslim ban in which Donald Trump has imposed has given rise to a surge in Muslim discrimination across America. These are just two instances in which freedom of expression leads to social regression because it testifies to the abuse of this freedom bestowed on the populous. Vilifying and cracking jokes about religion will tear the ever-widening social fabric that has held liberal democratic counties for years apart with its relentless wave of immigrants assimilating into these nations. These incidents hitherto unseen before will cause racial vitriol, disunity in society and potentially, social, economic and political instability. Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State could up the ante by ramping up propaganda to victimize disenchanted Muslims to join to fight as martyrs. These exploitations have manifested themselves with the rise of lone-wolf terrorist attacks around the world. Far-reaching implications like these will undermine the security of nations. As a result, people living in liberal democracies will soon sell down the river, the social principles they have stood by for so long.

Though it may be true that the freedom of expression can at times hinder the progress of nations, betraying principles like these will do greater harm than good. Look at how far nations which have espoused the freedom of expression have come. It is through these freedoms can positive changes be realised. It is through these freedoms can citizens, the building blocks of society, have a say in how to govern their country and not instead be politically apathetic. It is through the freedom of expression can the ideas of society be shared, mistakes are corrected and progress is achieved.

To end off, I do not believe that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation. In fact, it makes a nation’s collective experience more colourful by experiencing the best of times and the darkest of hours. That said, we must never forget that we are the masters of our own destiny. We can influence, direct and control our environment, to allow humankind to progress as one. To do so, it is of paramount importance that liberal democratic countries regulate the potential negative effects that may accompany the use of freedom of expression, especially with regards to sensitive racial and religious matters, so that these nations can progress towards their future utopia.

What should priorities of poorer nations be?

Poor countries have always had little say in international affairs due to them being viewed by developed countries as having inadequate economic prowess to be of any influence on the international stage.  Progress be it social or economic has been stifled by corruption, poor government funding, rampant diseases, racial tensions and low literacy level. The priorities of governments from poor countries should have a proper quality education, proper healthcare system, decent infrastructure and low crime rates. With the basic fundamentals stabilised, would it be able to progress and create new opportunities for sustained developments.

As it goes with any society, education is key to building a creative and intellect workforce that would have levels of productivity and improve the standard of living of one. They would possess relevant knowledge and skill to command a higher wage for their qualifications that would add comfort to one’s life.  Knowledge is said to be the only thing one cannot be robbed of.  If these poorer nations truly recognize the need of education for its multitude of benefits and not just know that education is vital, would they be on the right track.  Education that creates a talented workforce would be able to produce thinkers and inventors that can pull the country out of its current “brain drain” situation.  With a pool of talented and skillful individuals would they be able to attract foreign investors keen on tapping the undeveloped market that is complemented with a high productivity level.  The transfer of technology and management skills know-how would enable these countries to achieve sustained economic growth that would increase the national income and national employment rate of an economy.  Singapore was once a highly labour intensive country in the 1970s but the emphasis and constant revision of education led Singapore into a knowledge-based, innovative society that boasts high literacy levels of over 94 percent.  It is now a cosmopolitan city that is able to diverse production of various goods.  Education thus, should definitely be a priority for poor countries.

However, whether high levels of education can be achieved is difficult to say.  Firstly, lack of domestic teachers due to low level of qualifications and the fact that an educator’s income is relatively underpaid, would deter one from the profession.  Governments of poorer nations would have to initially “import” educators should the priority be met.  More often than not, they would demand higher wages due to their more “advanced” skills and knowledge. Moreover, poorer countries tend to be demographically large with lots of spare land and with no proper infrastructure.  The ability for one keen on educating himself to get to school is usually a long and tedious journey due to lack of transports or supply of schools.  Schools in poor African nations like Congo, Mali and Chad are sparsely located with no proper facilities for proper education and other developmental enrichments as such drama or sports. This may discourage one to go to school.  Also parents of children from these countries tend to make their child to take after the cradle to grave employment of farming than go to school, as they see farming more beneficial. Government thus should emphasize and create understanding for the need of education. For education to materialize and attract investors proper infrastructure should be built.

Poor hygiene practices and lack of sanitation have allowed diseases to be rampant such as malaria and pneumonia that snatch lives away from thousands of children yearly due to their still feeble developing immune system.  If these children have a chronic date with the Grim Reaper, then there is little but no future for these poor nations.  Human resource is a valuable factor for any country’s progress.  The implementation of a proper health care system that can be made affordable and easily accessible to all must be a priority.  For it to be effective it has to be coupled with better development of rural nations such as ensuring adequate supply of clean water and proper garbage disposable centres that would diminish the possibility of illness.  An obstacle these countries face is the high cost of the provision of healthcare.  In US the healthcare is subsidized at US$2800 per capita and in Singapore it is US$400 per capita.  If only the wealthier counterparts are able to afford it would undermine the nations effort to build a decent healthcare system. For instance, in Sri Lanka, hospitals can be as little as five in a state.  The high demand is not met by adequate supply that sees many left untreated or wait as long as eight years  to be treated.  Subsidies should be implemented with the priority to healthcare in poor countries.

A common detriment to poor countries is the lack of social cohesion and relatively high levels of crime rates be it white or blue collared crimes require proper law enforcement to be a priority.  With social unrest present in a country, focus on where it should be (education cum healthcare) is diverted to violence that breeds inefficiency and casualties. Investors too would become pessimistic about the country’s political climate that would deter investment and also conjure up a negative image of the country’s reputation. They would lose trust from their richer counterparts and would not have the opportunity to host major world events such as the World Cup, IMF meetings and Olympics that can accelerate growth.  Governments should regulate and revise laws that could be harsher to negate crime rates.  Social tensions could be quelled by implementing civics classes for racial groups to appreciate one and other.  For instance, the former ethnic clashes between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda saw over 850,000 casualties.  In Brazil drug syndicates have political ties and are difficult to weed out that can result in high levels of violence and in Eastern Europe, high levels of drug trafficking.  In Thailand, Red versus Yellow have made the country deemed unsafe to travel that lowered tourist numbers. If corruption and social tensions impeded, it can allow progress to thrive.  Tightening of law and proper administration of police forces to inspect and regulate areas should be a priority.  With greater influx of tourists as the country is deemed safer can increase government revenue that can be directed to financing merit goods that are long term investments.

Poorer nations are not congested in just one continent.  They live in contact side by side with their rich neighbours.  Poorer nations have the resources to thrive and should be able to know that they have opportunities – immense opportunities to be economically and politically stable (for instance China). If other countries are rising up they should too.  Excuses for lack of funding and what rot is immature.  If priorities are identified and rightfully implemented they would finally be a belie all who doubted them but more importantly see that the welfare of their citizens have been enhanced, giving them an equal chance based on meritocracy and minimize outflow of migrants.  With higher development of infrastructure, education, healthcare and low crime levels would they be able to handle better world environment problems that trouble the world. With social and economic security, they would have their opinions heard rather than discarded.

The massive rate at which the world population is ageing will give rise to unimaginable problems. How far do you agree?

The world population is ageing very fast owing to the blessings of longevity and improved health facilities. In 2006 the world’s elders were estimated to be 500 million which is predicted to reach 1 billion by 2030. On a global level, the increase in octogenarians is projected to increase by 151% between 2005 and 2030; the increase in 65 and above population is projected to grow by 104% and an increase of 21% for the population under age 65. This increase in the ageing population coupled with a decrease in the number of young people is creating a kind of social imbalance. This demo graph is evolving problems which are predicted to grow severe with passing time. Nations and governments have started developing strategies to minimize the effects of this demographic transition, but how successful these strategies will be, and at what cost, is a serious point of contemplation. The excessive increase in the ageing population of the world will create severe problems for the government, for the young generation as well as for the seniors themselves.

Today the number of elderly is increasing at a vast rate and the governments are finding it difficult to provide financial security and health care to them for the extended years of their lives. The first major necessity of the elders is of health services and long term care. Second, is to extend financial support through pension plans and the next is to arrange for other facilities like transport, roads, recreation centres and community centres for them. All this requires strong economic growth which is not possible in the shrinking young population scenario.

 As the workforce in all nations has fallen low, the development programs are under stress, the revenue generation is inadequate. It is becoming tough for governments to mobilize and allocate resources in various schemes. In order to satisfy the essential requirements of the growing number of old people for a growing number of years, other development programs have to be compromised with. It may be quite possible that caring for the elderly will be like ignoring the children and investing in nursing homes will slash the budget meant for schools and teachers. A number of health workers and nursing staff will be migrating from low-income areas to high-income areas. The required revenue cannot be generated from the shrinking workforce and the governments have to cut down the pensions and increase the retirement age. Even then it is uncertain that the situation will be under control.

Today there is a fewer number of people in the workforce,  who on one hand, have to bear the burden of supporting the nation’s finance through revenue generation, and on the other hand, support the elderly in every way. Earlier there were a number of children, siblings and young members in a family and it was easier to take care of the few elders in it. But today such families have disappeared. Longevity has developed the trend of a four-generation family with a single young member or a couple at the most. These young people have to undertake dual responsibility in the family, of taking care of the children as well as of parents and grandparents; at the same time, they cannot ignore their professional workload and demands of society. These members of the younger generation also have to cut down expenses to invest in the security insurance plans. They also bear some liability towards other veterans in the community. Many times the young member can be compelled to move abroad or to another place for jobs and face moral pressure of leaving the elders uncared. This clearly implies that the ageing population is imposing every kind of -physical, mental, financial, social and moral -burden on the young.

The ageing population will have innumerable challenging issues for themselves. They will suffer in many ways, in health, finance and social security. Senility and debility hold the elders by hand. Most of the elderly are found ailing with chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer and cardiac problems. The recent development of geriatrics offers cure from these but in most cases, the patient falls into some kind of disability making long term care essential. The cost of treatment and long term care is not within everybody’s reach and government-aided facilities will become insufficient in the coming times. Growing in age makes them lose their spouses and having fewer children or remaining childless leaves them devoid of family care. Even if some of them would be fortunate enough to have children, yet the children would stay near and care for them is doubtful. Most of the baby boomers are also found deficient in education and skills as demanded by modern technical professions. Hence it is unlikely that they will be able to continue in the labour force despite good health and fitness. They will have to bear the insult of working under younger bosses. Slashing of pensions as imposed by many governments will leave them in clutches of poverty. Senescent and lonely, the elderly will have to compromise with circumstances.

Ageing of the world is, after all, not a big problem, as the communities are growing conscious and supportive even as the governments are developing plans for comfortable ageing. The situation has come before all and everyone from individuals to communities and governments are moving in the direction to enhance the quality of life for the senior citizens.

That the families have fewer young members is a positive trait. These members are strong and dutiful and accept their liability towards their elders. Emotions and morals attach them to their parents and grandparents. The communities are making special spaces for elders; libraries, recreation centres, parks, fitness, physiotherapy and yoga centres are mushrooming in societies. Organisations like the World Bank and UNESCO; the programs of MDG’s and SDG’s will not let the veterans to starve or to die aidless. There are practical solutions to this over-emphasized problem of an ageing world. The elderly themselves are becoming more and more responsible day by day making self-esteemed and self-earned status for themselves. The elders themselves are beginning to take responsibilities, working for more years and making arrangements for their retirement. They are reducing the impact of compressed workforce and pressure on the government.

Despite the emotional and moral strengths, it will not be possible for the young members to look after the elderly. They have their own pressing priorities of jobs, personal health and social issues. However much the old people may want, they will not be able to remain productive and self-dependent. The government will also increase revenues, decrease pension amounts and increase the retirement age. Communicable and non-communicable diseases will show their impact and leave the elderly in the lap of loneliness and poor health. Migration and increasing fertility rates are solutions no doubt but do not appear practical

The ageing of the world is going to develop problematic issues for the nation, for the young and for the elderly. But an overall awareness and active participation of all in solving this crucial problem will soon bring about a positive change in the situation. But so far as strategies have not been implemented it has to be accepted that population ageing will develop unimaginable problems.  

There are hardly any worthwhile role models for young people nowadays. Discuss.

Written using an unconventional structure.

The idea that there are fewer positive role models in our contemporary society is based on a fallacy. There are actually more positive role models today than ever before, and it is very easy to get to know them through the new media. We live in an age where people from opposite sides of the planet can easily communicate and share information in real time, and thus greatly influence each other.

This means that young people do not have to limit their popular culture needs to the place where they live. There are thousands of other places that they can find about on the internet, and they can access the internet anywhere, anytime, even on mobile devices. However, the same technologies that can help them in this regard is also the main roadblock in their path to finding positive role models, because the new media mainly promotes negative models, since positive ones have a smaller public impact, while negative attitudes sell better.

This is the reason why many people consider that there are fewer role models for young people nowadays: because they only look at what is promoted on popular TV stations, magazines and websites. However, there are still a great number of publications that focus their attention on educational aspects, which follow a strict deontological ethic and do not care only about their budgets.

Also, individuals can search for role models on their own, without the help of large publications. Of course, parents can also guide their children and teach them where and how to find useful and positive information, without forcing them to learn about things they do not care, but encouraging them to find good models on their own.   

Magnus Carlsen, aged 24, is a child prodigy and the world’s chess champion. Unlike other chess prodigies in the past (Bobby Fischer being the best example), he is a very optimistic, cheerful and charismatic person. He lives a healthy life, engaging in various other sport activities. He always smiles and loves what he is doing. Carlsen is the living proof that people can succeed if they work hard, love what they are doing, remain focus and have a healthy lifestyle. It is now easier than ever to follow Carlsen’s work and his personal life, through most of the popular social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and even on his Youtube channel.

Unlike in the past, there are no major media publications that mediate this relationship between Carlsen and his fans, which means that admirers can have direct and immediate access to Carlsen’s determination and words of wisdom. There are thousands of other positive role models who can be found in sports, music or films, although they are not as promoted as the negative ones are. Adolescents can easily reach them if they balance mainstream media with traditional and independent media sources. Just as always, it is just a matter of knowing where and how to search for good information and role models.  

             While it is true that the media has changed, and that this change brings about a bad influence to young people nowadays, it is also true that, with a little effort, young people can use the same media to their advantage. Although there are more negative than positive role models nowadays, there are still more than enough positive ones to choose from. The new media, the process of globalization and instant access to information worldwide makes it easier for adolescents to find people who have succeeded in domains that interest them. It also makes it easier for them to understand how and why these people have succeeded, and thus to learn from their successes. Most people are however blind to these immense opportunities and this blindness is a form of ignorance, the same ignorance that makes other people blame technology for their own failures. Violence, sexism and hate are a major theme of our contemporary world. It is however up to each and every one of us to choose our goals and ideals in life. Everyone will choose the thing that best fits their own character and desires. Neither schools nor parents can impose positive role models on young people. They can however guide adolescents and help them make the right decisions. This decision has to ultimately come natural to them.

Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington’s “War on Terror”. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former – be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response.

From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives – lives that had little to do with the terrorist’s main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a “moral” global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances.

Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more, satanic than the policymakers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries.

Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. State-sponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, the show’s the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi’s sanctioning of civilian aeroplane bombings over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable.

Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever-increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leaders such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.

But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil’s advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case.

Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First World has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century, the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world ‘s action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War-era weapons are the mainstays of Al Qaeda’s and Abu Sayaff’s arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda’s cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheddin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin Laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.

In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists’ own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the “unfairness” and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations of Chechnya. And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand, the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people’s bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an acceptable outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor.

Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not just enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA ‘s refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take note of CNN’s coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever’s in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.

“Discuss the impact of the mass media on society today.”

In this current age, the mass media has played an integral part in the lives of both the young and old. The mass media, which comes in the form of publications, television programmes, the Internet, music and others, has had both positive and negative impacts on the society today, influencing their mindsets and beliefs. In my opinion, mass media has resulted in more negative effects than positive.

The mass media influences the mindsets of the young and impressionable; leading to a blurring of the distinction between right and wrong. One has to be discerning in what he believes, which is presented by the mass media. Without the knowledge of being able to differentiate between good and evil, it is easy for one to be easily swayed by the messages conveyed by the media. Take, for instance, violent television programmes such as WWF wrestling, which advocates violence. The programme depicts scenes of wrestlers beating each other up to a bloody pulp and hurling verbal abuses at each other. Youths and children who cannot differentiate between right and wrong are eventually influenced into having the misconception that violence and verbal abuse is a solution to problems or disputes. This may lead to insidious effects over time, such as imitable behaviour. A significant example to note is that the teenage gunmen behind the Columbine High School massacre were avid fans of certain violent video games. Although there is no concrete evidence that playing such games led them to commit their heinous deed, there is the possibility that they were influenced into thinking that killing is a solution to rid them of people they disliked. Hence it is evident that the mass media has influenced the beliefs of the young, and has resulted in an inability to tell right from wrong.

The mass media knows no boundaries, and thus certain messages conveyed may be offensive or inappropriate. While mediums of mass media such as the television and publications may be restricted by censorship or bans, the Internet is one medium that cannot be controlled. Anyone can easily make information available and accessible on the Internet, through websites, blogs and the like. In some cases, racial slurs or discriminatory messages against certain religions may even make their way onto the World Wide Web. An example is the controversial, anti-Islamic video, “Fitna”.“Fitna”, a short film by Geert Wilders, made its debut online and was even posted on Youtube, a video sharing website open to the public. The film linked the religion to terrorism and resulted in an uproar in the Islamic world. Supporters and followers of Islam were furious, and there were even protests against the film. The furore over“Fitna” is evidence the mass media has no limits, as there is no control over what is on the Internet. In“Fitna”’s case, there is clearly discrimination against Islam, resulting in many Muslims feeling angry and offended. Despite calls to ban the video, it is still available on various websites for public viewing. Thus it is clear that there are no boundaries in the mass media, regardless of the content of the messages conveyed.

The mass media may lead to bias in the beliefs of society, as there might be control imposed on the information conveyed, thus preventing the people from seeing the big picture. In several countries, the mass media has become a powerful medium of conveying messages of propaganda. Only selected information is made available to the public, with bans imposed on information deemed as inappropriate. An example is China. The people are fed with pro-government information, as the government has banned Blogger, a blog hosting website, and any form of publication or websites that are anti-government. 50 journalists and bloggers were arrested early this year, for posting anti-political party comments online. By disallowing opinions against the government to be made accessible to the public, the citizens in China are not provided with the big picture of their government. While some of the people are aware of the propaganda presented to them via the mass media in their country, many others are not as discerning, and pro-government values are inculcated in them. Even in other countries, it is only natural for the governments to use the mass media to present themselves in a positive light, as they want the support of the people. However, imposing restrictions on the messages spread by the mass media leads to a one-sided view of matters, and people will be unable to see the other side of the coin. Therefore the mass media has resulted in influencing society into having narrow mindsets.

On the other hand, the mass media has had beneficial impacts on the society in this age, as it is an efficient medium of spreading information. Forms of the mass media, such as the Internet, have made information easily accessible by the public. With a few clicks of the computer mouse, the public is exposed to a wide range of current affairs in the world. For instance, when cyclone Nargis in Myanmar occurred, blogs, websites and forums were flooded with news about it. Another form of the mass media, publications such as newspapers, also informed the public of the news. Regardless of country, it was only a short while before nearly everyone knew about the natural disaster. The governments of countries did not need to formally inform the whole country of the news, as the various forms of mass media had already done that. Hence it is evident that the mass media has impacted society positively, as it is a convenient and effective means of relaying information.

While the mass media has its benefits in society, its negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The mass media is able to influence the mindsets of the young, is without boundaries and plays a huge role in shaping the beliefs of a country’s citizens. Thus, I conclude that the mass media has had a negative impact on the society of today.

Terrorism can be justified. How far do you agree?

The introduction is overly long but the essay has a mature quality about it.

Maximilien Robespierre, an influential and instrumental figure in the period of the French Revolution generally branded as the Reign of Terror, formerly affirmed that, “subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s repression against tyranny.” In the present day, contemporary terrorists impute Robespierre’s perception that aggression is mandatory to protect and emancipate a population. Given that the number of global inhabitants is projected to multiply to 8 billion by 2025, state and international conflicts will propagate as a root of concern for the human race. The perpetual discussion for an explicit definition of what constitutes terrorism by the United Nations appears to be infinite since member countries are ineffectual to form a bilaterally accepted definition. Although the general public condemns terrorism, there remains a double standard of “us versus them” involved in such beliefs. Terrorism can be justified on one hand as there is an element of actuality to the remark “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. On the other hand, terrorism is intrinsically corrupt therefore the rationale is to oppose terrorism in the name of ethics.

Terrorism can be accounted for as a reaction of the perpetrator due to subjugation and individuals’ political principles. Those labelled “terrorists” seldom identify themselves per se, and conventionally resort to euphemistic terms or titles specific to their condition such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, militant, guerrilla, and rebel. It can hence be construed that the perpetrators consider their actions to be righteous, perhaps even obligatory. Terrorists launch wars, claiming for just causes such as self-defence as well as aegis of innocents from threats from despotic governments, civil disorder, and external assaults. Due to a disintegration of law and stability, terrorists bear arms in retaliation to suppression of fundamental constitutional rights. By and large, the sense of duty to defend a society is vested in sovereignty clout but the administration may fail. Under these circumstances, a climate of alarm emerges thus the genesis of guerrillas. The case in point, insurgents validate Islamic terrorism as resistance to American policies in the Middle East or Israeli occupation of Palestine. Terror campaigns are also implemented in an attempt to advocate the customary system. Take for instance, Protestant extremist communities in Northern Ireland have exerted terrorism against those supporting a cohesive Ireland. Therefore, terrorism can be substantiated from the rebel’s stance, in response to contravention of one’s societal, parliamentary, spiritual and ethical dogmas.

However, religion is an inexcusable pretext for acts of terror. The Islamic faith does not condone terrorism. Suicide bombers’ actions mainly stem from political conflict, not religion. Terrorist organizations have illustrated their grounds in spiritual and cultural expressions. Nonetheless, this is frequently a blatant strategy premeditated to conceal political goals, spawn widespread fear and silence disagreement. It is fallacious to presuppose religion would typically result in carnage although religion is not totally above suspicion either.

In reality, ostensible religious terrorism transpires only under the coalescence of idiosyncratic political, social and ideological conditions. Religion becomes fused with vehement expressions of communal objectives, personal egotism, and movements for governmental reform. Thus, such heinous acts cannot be justified on tenets of religious beliefs.

Explanations for terrorism are further complicated by the ethical ambiguity that encircles terrorism. Pragmatic theorists and non-utilitarian philosophers hold contradictory opinions on whether particular acts of terrorism can be vindicated as the lesser evil in a specific circumstance. Utilitarian logicians can hypothetically formulate instances in which sin of terrorism is outweighed by significant commodities that cannot be secured with less moral loss. In practice, pragmatists repeatedly rebuff terrorism since it is extremely questionable that acts of terrorism achieve imperative goods in an efficient conduct or that the detrimental outcomes of undermining the pact of non-combatant immunity is considered to prevail over the success of terrorism. On the contrary, Don Quixotes stress that terrorism is constantly amoral unless the society faces the acute peril of absolute annihilation and the sole means of self-preservation is through deliberately targeting non-combatants. Due to ethical inconclusiveness, it is challenging to realize an accord on the settings in which terrorism can be justified.

Terrorism can be justified through the communal, constitutional, religious and moral creeds of the insurgents because in the modern world, there is no absolute right or wrong concept and there is no standard of doctrines. Moreover, terrorism is a pejorative term with intrinsically negative insinuations which are broadly relevant to one’s dissidents. To a large extent, the application of the term is exceedingly prejudiced such that its use implies a moral assessment. If a person empathizes with the victim of antagonism on one hand, then the act is considered terrorism. On the other hand, assuming one identifies with the freedom fighter, the brutal act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not encouraging or at least ambivalent light.