ABSTRACT
Groups that use violence also employ justifications for that violence, whether tailored for themselves, supporters or external observers. This article seeks to analyse selected examples of such justifications critically through the lens of applied ethics, specifically the justificatory theories termed deontology and consequentialism. These different approaches to justification, and the ways in which they are employed, tell us much about the self-perceptions, ideologies and psychologies of users of political violence. The paper examines whether different sorts of terrorist groups might be said to gravitate towards one particular justificatory mode rather than the other. To this end, the article presents and analyses actual and typical justificatory arguments used by the Provisional IRA, the Red Army Faction, al-Qaeda and anti-abortion militants.
