John Locke Global Essay Prize 2025 Philosophy Prompts Breakdown
The John Locke Institute has just released the prompts for their international essay writing competitions for high school students. They have released three prompts for each of the following categories, philosophy, politics, economics, history, law, psychology, and theology. Each essay must address only one of the questions in your chosen subject category, and must not exceed 2000 words (not counting diagrams, tables of data, endnotes, bibliography or authorship declaration).
To be eligible to compete, one's 19th birthday must fall after June 30th, 2025. Given this easily satisfied requirement for high school students the world over, many compete in this competition, making it incredibly competitive.
The John Locke Competition is one of the most prestigious essay writing competitions for high school students. It ranks alongside the Scholastic Arts and Writing Awards as a humanities extracurricular activity that would impress admissions officers. Placing competitively in this competition could be what convinces an admissions officer at an elite university to admit an applicant.
One major difference between the John Locke competition and the Scholastic Writing and Arts Awards is that it has a right-wing, instead of a left-wing focus. Past winning essays have argued for fringe ideas like anarcho-capitalism. The John Locke Institute is committed to upholding the principles of classical liberalism espoused by John Locke, the founder of liberalism. Being liberal in Europe has a different connotation than it does in the U.S. While liberalism in the U.S. is associated with center-left politics like the Democratic Party, in Europe, it denotes what Americans would call conservatives, who believe in laissez-faire economic policies and upholding individual freedom to the point that it might enable individuals to infringe on the liberties of others, such as individuals having the right to deny service to people at their place of business due to their sexual orientation.
Despite the competition's right-wing focus, and the well-known left-wing bias of academics and admissions officers, high school students can place competitively without arguing for positions that would decrease their likability with a left-wing audience when applying to college.
We have extensive experience guiding applicants through this competition and are proud to have students who received at least a commendation from the judges. In this article, we will outline the three philosophy questions they ask and provide resources, along with cliff notes for these resources, to help start one's journey towards drafting compelling answers to these questions.
Philosophy Q1:
What moral obligations do we owe to living persons that we do not owe to future persons? What are the implications of your answer for policy-making?
Classical and Enlightenment Perspectives
Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics"
Focuses on virtue within immediate communities and relationships
Emphasizes obligations based on proximity and existing relationships
Suggests stronger obligations to contemporaries through virtue of justice in actual communities
John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"
Introduces the "Lockean proviso" regarding property acquisition: leave "enough and as good" for others
Establishes intergenerational constraints on resource appropriation
Argues natural law requires consideration of future persons' access to resources
Suggests present use must not deprive future generations of life necessities
Property rights are legitimate only if they preserve opportunities for future persons
John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
Explores personal identity through time and consciousness
Provides framework for thinking about personhood across temporal distances
Identity considerations may affect how we conceptualize obligations to future persons
Suggests rationality as key to moral status, applicable across temporal locations
John Locke's "Some Thoughts Concerning Education"
Emphasizes present obligations to children for future flourishing
Connects current actions to welfare of identifiable future persons
Suggests stronger obligations to near-future identifiable individuals
Educational responsibilities demonstrate asymmetry in temporal moral relations
David Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature"
Argues moral sentiments are naturally stronger toward those proximate in time and space
Our sympathy diminishes with temporal distance
Presents psychological rather than normative justification for prioritizing present persons
Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals"
Universal moral principles apply regardless of temporal location
All rational beings deserve equal moral consideration
Suggests no fundamental distinction between duties to present vs. future persons
John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism"
Happiness should be maximized regardless of when it occurs
Introduces possibility of discount rates on future utility
In principle, equal consideration to all persons regardless of temporal location
Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"
Society as "partnership between those living, those dead, and those yet to be born"
Emphasizes intergenerational continuity and obligation
Suggests robust duties to future generations as part of social contract
Contemporary Sources
Foundational Works on Intergenerational Ethics
Derek Parfit's "Reasons and Persons" (1984)
Introduces the non-identity problem: future people's identities depend on our present actions
Challenges person-affecting views of morality
Argues traditional moral theories fail to account for future persons adequately
Shows why harming "different future people" is morally problematic despite identity complications
John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" (1971) and "Justice as Fairness" (2001)
Develops "just savings principle" for intergenerational justice
Original position with veil of ignorance extends to future generations
Proposes mutual disinterest can yield just treatment across generations
Acknowledges asymmetry between generations (we affect future but they cannot affect us)
Gregory Kavka's "The Paradox of Future Individuals" (1982)
Explores paradoxes in obligations to future generations
Examines whether we can wrong future people through reproductive choices
Suggests obligations differ based on identifiability and determinate harm
Introduces the "paradox of the beneficiary" in future person cases
Hans Jonas' "The Imperative of Responsibility" (1979)
Advocates new ethical framework based on technological power over future
Proposes precautionary principle for actions affecting future persons
Argues technological power creates asymmetrical responsibility to future
Suggests traditional ethics inadequate for long-term technological impacts
Contemporary Theoretical Approaches
James Tully's "A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries" (1980)
Re-examines Lockean proviso in context of intergenerational justice
Analyzes implications of Locke's property theory for obligations to future persons
Suggests Lockean natural law requires consideration of future generations
Connects historical property theories to contemporary resource questions
C.B. Macpherson's "The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism" (1962)
Critiques Lockean property rights from perspective of future generations
Questions whether unrestricted accumulation violates Lockean proviso
Analyzes implications of Lockean theory for intergenerational resource allocation
Suggests limitations on property rights based on future interests
Samuel Scheffler's "Death and the Afterlife" (2013)
Argues we implicitly value continuation of humanity after our deaths
The "afterlife conjecture": many current values depend on assumption of human future
Our concern for future generations reflects central aspects of current value systems
Challenges the view that we prioritize contemporaries on temporal grounds
Tim Mulgan's "Future People" (2006)
Proposes theory of "variable moral status" where future people have moral status but different rights
Develops consequentialism that distinguishes between needs and luxuries across generations
Argues we have stronger obligations regarding basic needs of future persons
Suggests different theoretical frameworks for different temporal distances
David Heyd's "Genethics" (1992)
Defends "genethical" principle limiting obligations to actual identifiable people
Argues we cannot harm non-identifiable future persons
Suggests present interests can legitimately take precedence over future possibilities
Explores implications for reproductive ethics and population policies
Melinda Roberts' "Child Versus Childmaker" (1998)
Defends person-affecting approach while addressing non-identity problem
Distinguishes between determinate and indeterminate future persons
Argues we have obligations not to harm identifiable future individuals
Suggests different obligations based on identifiability and causal relationship
Simon Caney's "Justice Beyond Borders" (2005)
Develops human rights approach to intergenerational justice
Argues fundamental rights create obligations regardless of temporal location
Claims that basic rights violations are wrong regardless of when they occur
Minimizes distinctions between obligations to present vs. future persons
Henry Shue's "Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection" (2014)
Focuses on subsistence rights of future generations
Distinguishes between luxury emissions now and survival emissions later
Argues negative obligations (avoiding harm) extend fully to future persons
Suggests stronger obligations to avoid serious, irreversible harm to future persons
Janna Thompson's "Intergenerational Justice" (2009)
Develops contractarian approach to intergenerational obligations
Argues obligations derive from ongoing intergenerational communities
Suggests stronger duties to near future generations than distant ones
Proposes temporal distance might justify some differences in obligations
Applied Intergenerational Ethics
Stephen Gardiner's "A Perfect Moral Storm" (2011)
Analyzes climate ethics as intergenerational collective action problem
Identifies "moral corruption" in discounting future interests
Argues institutional failures systematically disadvantage future persons
Suggests present bias reflects moral failure rather than justified priority
Peter Laslett and James Fishkin's "Justice Between Age Groups and Generations" (1992)
Applies Lockean principles to contemporary intergenerational questions
Examines how property rights affect obligations across generations
Suggests modifications to Lockean proviso for long-term justice
Connects historical theories to contemporary policy challenges
Elizabeth Cripps' "Climate Change and the Moral Agent" (2013)
Examines collective responsibilities toward future generations
Argues for robust obligations regarding climate action
Suggests present people have responsibilities regarding future access to resources
Addresses tensions between individual and collective responsibilities across time
Axel Gosseries and Lukas Meyer's "Intergenerational Justice" (2009)
Anthology covering various approaches to obligations across generations
Surveys theoretical justifications for intergenerational duties
Explores practical implications for environmental policy, cultural preservation
Presents multiple perspectives on differential treatment across time
Joerg Chet Tremmel's "A Theory of Intergenerational Justice" (2009)
Develops comprehensive theory of justice between generations
Argues for preserving options, cultural heritage, and environmental resources
Suggests some asymmetry in obligations based on causal relationships
Connects theoretical approaches to concrete policy recommendations
Rahul Kumar's "Who Can Be Wronged?" (2003)
Examines whether future generations can be wronged by present actions
Argues contractualism can accommodate future persons' claims
Suggests identifiability does not fundamentally affect moral status
Challenges views that discount obligations to future persons
Brian Barry's "Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice" (1997)
Defends principle of equal opportunities across generations
Argues against temporal discounting of future interests
Suggests strong obligations to preserve options for future generations
Challenges view that we have stronger obligations to contemporaries
Gopal Sreenivasan's "A Hybrid Theory of Claim-Rights" (2005)
Draws on Lockean rights theory for intergenerational questions
Examines whether future persons can have claim-rights against present persons
Analyzes implications of Lockean natural rights for future interests
Suggests modifications to rights theory for intergenerational contexts
Norman Daniels' "Am I My Parents' Keeper?" (1988)
Develops prudential lifespan account for justice between age cohorts
Focuses on overlapping generations rather than distant future
Suggests obligations based on our own interests extended over time
Provides framework for obligations to nearby generations
Martha Nussbaum's "Frontiers of Justice" (2006)
Applies capabilities approach across generations
Argues for threshold of capabilities for all persons regardless of when they live
Questions whether future persons can make present claims
Explores tensions between immediate needs and future capabilities
Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice" (2009)
Capability approach applicable across generations
Focuses on comparative rather than ideal justice
Emphasizes actual outcomes over abstract principles
Could justify focus on removing present injustices while considering future
Advanced Theoretical Perspectives
Thomas Nagel's "Equality and Partiality" (1991)
Explores tension between impartial and personal standpoints
Provides framework for justifying partiality to contemporaries
Suggests temporal location might justify some difference in treatment
Examines how to balance impartial concern with personal projects
Simon Keller's "Partiality" (2013)
Defends ethical partiality based on special relationships
Suggests temporal location affects relationship possibilities
Argues relationships create special obligations to contemporaries
Explores tensions between impartial ethics and relationship-based duties
Matthew Adler's "Well-Being and Fair Distribution" (2012)
Develops prioritarian approach to intergenerational justice
Examines formal models for weighing present vs. future interests
Addresses problems with interpersonal and intertemporal comparisons
Proposes mathematical approaches to weighting welfare across time
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's "It's Not My Fault" (2005)
Questions whether traditional moral frameworks apply to intergenerational problems
Examines individual moral responsibility for collective, intergenerational harms
Suggests new ethical approaches for global, long-term challenges
Implies differences in obligations based on causal responsibility
Douglas MacLean's "The Ethics of Posterity" (1983)
Questions grounds for moral obligations to future generations
Examines whether uncertainty about future justifies present priority
Explores practical reasons for caring about distant future
Addresses psychological limitations in future-oriented ethics
Formulating an Answer: Guidance
Define key terms precisely:
Distinguish between types of "future persons" (near vs. distant, identifiable vs. non-identifiable)
Clarify what constitutes a "moral obligation" in your framework
Specify what "owing" obligations means in temporal context
Consider Lockean concepts of natural rights and property limitations
Consider different ethical frameworks:
Consequentialist perspectives may treat future/present persons equally in principle
Deontological approaches may differentiate duties to actual versus potential persons
Virtue ethics emphasizes relationships and communities existing in the present
Contractarian theories vary in whether they include future persons in original agreement
Natural law theories (including Locke's) suggest basic constraints on resource use across time
Core Philosophical Issues
Address the non-identity problem:
Future people's identities depend on our present actions
Can we harm people whose existence depends on the allegedly harmful act?
Does identifiability affect strength of moral obligation?
Consider temporal discounting:
Should future benefits/harms count less than present ones?
Is psychological discounting of future morally justified?
How should uncertainty about future affect our obligations?
Examine potential grounds for differential treatment:
Actuality vs. potentiality: Present persons actually exist; future persons are potential
Identifiability: We can identify present persons but not specific future individuals
Causal relationships: We directly affect contemporaries but indirectly affect future
Special relationships: We have existing relationships with contemporaries
Uncertainty: We know more about present than future needs
Lockean proviso: Consider implications of "enough and as good" requirement
Consider asymmetries in obligations:
Negative duties (non-harm) may extend more fully to future persons
Positive duties (beneficence) may be stronger toward contemporaries
Emergency duties may prioritize present suffering over future possibilities
Basic needs may have priority over luxury interests across time
Resource preservation duties based on Lockean limitations on appropriation
Policy Implications
Examine concrete policy areas:
Climate change: How much should present generations sacrifice for future climate stability?
Public debt: How should we balance present spending against future burdens?
Resource conservation: What obligations exist to preserve non-renewable resources?
Infrastructure: How should we weigh immediate costs against future benefits?
Research priorities: How much should we invest in preventing future catastrophic risks?
Institutional design: How can we better represent future interests in present decisions?
Property rights: How should Lockean limitations affect contemporary resource policies?
Address practical constraints:
Psychological limitations in valuing distant future
Democratic systems' focus on present voters
Market failures in accounting for long-term externalities
Institutional challenges in representing future interests
Develop a nuanced position that:
Acknowledges valid points from multiple perspectives
Distinguishes between different types of obligations
Considers different timeframes (near vs. distant future)
Balances theoretical ideals with practical feasibility
Incorporates Lockean natural law constraints on resource appropriation
Test your position against concrete cases:
Climate change mitigation vs. present poverty alleviation
Present medical care vs. medical research for future benefit
Conservation of resources vs. present consumption needs
Nuclear waste disposal with very long-term consequences
Property accumulation versus future access to natural resources
Philosophy Q2:
Should we treat non-human animals well because they have rights, interests, neither, or both?
Classical and Enlightenment Perspectives
John Locke's "Some Thoughts Concerning Education"
Warns against allowing children to be cruel to animals
Argues cruelty to animals leads to cruelty toward humans
Suggests indirect duty regarding animals, not direct duties to them
Implies animals lack intrinsic moral standing but deserve consideration
Establishes early framework for indirect duty view of animal treatment
John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"
Establishes natural law foundation for property rights over animals
Animals seen as resources given by God for human use
Introduces stewardship concept - humans as caretakers of God's property
Suggests limits on animal exploitation through waste prohibition
Sets philosophical groundwork for responsible dominion view of animals
John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
Distinguishes humans from animals through rationality and reflection
Acknowledges animal sentience and capacity for pleasure/pain
Animals possess "sensitive knowledge" but lack abstract reasoning
Establishes cognitive hierarchy that influences moral status
Provides framework that could support interest-based consideration
René Descartes' "Discourse on Method"
Presents mechanistic view of animals as complex automata
Denies animal consciousness and sentience ("beast-machine" hypothesis)
Justifies disregard for animal suffering based on lack of mind
Provides historical counterpoint to contemporary views
Established philosophical position still relevant to debates on animal consciousness
Immanuel Kant's "Lectures on Ethics"
Argues animals are not ends in themselves, only means
Cruelty to animals wrong because it damages human character
Establishes influential "indirect duty" view of animal ethics
Denies direct moral status to animals while advocating kind treatment
Provides reasoning for treating animals well without granting rights
Jeremy Bentham's "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation"
Famous quote: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
Establishes sentience (capacity to suffer) as basis for moral consideration
Shifts focus from rationality to suffering as morally relevant characteristic
Foundational text for interest-based approach to animal ethics
Provides utilitarian framework for considering animal welfare
Arthur Schopenhauer's "On the Basis of Morality"
Criticizes Kantian exclusion of animals from direct moral concern
Argues compassion should extend to all suffering beings
Emphasizes unity of all life through capacity for suffering
Early philosophical defense of direct duties to animals
Connects animal ethics to broader metaphysical framework
Henry Salt's "Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress"
First systematic defense of concept of animal rights
Argues for rights based on sentience and individual experience
Connects animal protection to broader social justice movements
Critiques anthropocentrism in ethical frameworks
Provides historical foundation for modern rights-based approaches
Contemporary Sources
Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" (1975)
Introduces concept of "speciesism" as unjustified bias
Argues for equal consideration of interests across species
Focuses on capacity for suffering as sole relevant criterion
Rejects rights framework in favor of utilitarian approach
Provides philosophical foundation for modern animal advocacy
Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" (1979)
Develops sophisticated interest-based approach to animal ethics
Argues different interests deserve different weights based on capacities
Explores tensions between human and animal interests
Addresses practical conflicts in applied animal ethics
Shows how interest-based approach handles complex ethical dilemmas
Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" (1983)
Defends rights-based approach against utilitarian alternatives
Introduces "subject-of-a-life" criterion for rights-bearing
Argues inherent value creates inviolable rights against harm
Differentiates rights from interests and welfare considerations
Provides comprehensive rights-based alternative to Singer
Gary Francione's "Introduction to Animal Rights" (2000)
Argues property status of animals violates basic right not to be treated as things
Critiques welfare reforms as reinforcing property paradigm
Presents abolitionist approach to animal rights
Distinguishes between welfare and rights approaches
Addresses legal and institutional barriers to animal rights
Martha Nussbaum's "Frontiers of Justice" (2006)
Applies capabilities approach to animal ethics
Argues different species have different flourishing requirements
Combines elements of both rights and interests approaches
Critiques contract theory for excluding animals
Shows how justice framework can incorporate animal concerns
David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously" (1996)
Develops coherence-based approach to animal ethics
Argues for equal consideration while acknowledging different capacities
Explores connections between interests and rights
Analyzes moral status across different animal species
Shows how rights might be grounded in interests
Clare Palmer's "Animal Ethics in Context" (2010)
Argues obligations vary based on relationship to animals
Distinguishes between wild and domesticated animal ethics
Challenges one-size-fits-all approaches to animal ethics
Shows how context affects rights and interest considerations
Demonstrates importance of human-animal relationships to ethical duties
Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka's "Zoopolis" (2011)
Applies political theory to animal rights framework
Different categories of animals deserve different kinds of rights
Wild animals deserve sovereignty, domesticated animals citizenship
Shows how rights framework can accommodate contextual factors
Expands rights approach beyond negative rights to political rights
Christine Korsgaard's "Fellow Creatures" (2018)
Reconstructs Kantian approach to include direct duties to animals
Animals value their good in way that makes them ends in themselves
Critiques both rights-based and utilitarian approaches
Shows how deontological framework can accommodate animal ethics
Addresses historical exclusion of animals from moral theories
Mark Rowlands' "Animal Rights" (2009)
Defends contractarian approach to animal rights
Modifies Rawlsian theory to include animals in moral community
Addresses rationality objection to animal rights
Shows how contractarian approaches can overcome speciesism
Connects animal rights to broader theories of justice
Bernard Rollin's "Animal Rights and Human Morality" (1981)
Develops concept of animal telos (nature) as basis for rights
Argues rights protect essential interests related to species nature
Combines science of animal behavior with ethical theory
Shows how scientific understanding supports moral consideration
Addresses practical applications in animal husbandry and research
Lori Gruen's "Entangled Empathy" (2015)
Develops empathy-based approach to animal ethics
Critiques abstract theories in favor of relationship-based ethics
Shows how empathy connects to moral responsibility
Presents feminist alternative to rights and interest approaches
Emphasizes importance of attending to particular animal experiences
Cora Diamond's "Eating Meat and Eating People" (1978)
Critiques both utilitarian and rights-based approaches as abstract
Argues moral relation to animals emerges from shared vulnerability
Questions whether rights or interests capture full moral dimension
Shows how language shapes our ethical thinking about animals
Provides Wittgensteinian perspective on animal ethics
J. Baird Callicott's "In Defense of the Land Ethic" (1989)
Critiques rights-based approach from environmental perspective
Argues holistic view challenges individualistic animal ethics
Shows tensions between animal rights and ecosystem protection
Questions whether concepts of rights or interests apply to wild animals
Provides ecological perspective on animal ethics
Formulating an Answer: Guidance
Define Key Terms
Distinguish between moral rights, legal rights, and natural rights
Clarify different types of interests (welfare interests, preference interests)
Specify which animals the analysis applies to (all sentient beings, mammals, vertebrates)
Consider gradations of moral status based on cognitive complexity
Analyze how Lockean natural rights might extend beyond humans
Analyze Philosophical Approaches
Compare utilitarian approaches focusing on interests (Singer)
Evaluate deontological approaches focusing on rights (Regan)
Consider hybrid theories combining rights and interests (DeGrazia)
Examine contextual approaches based on relationships (Palmer)
Assess how Lockean property theory constrains animal use
Address Theoretical Questions
Can rights exist without interests? Can interests exist without rights?
Are rights derived from interests or independent of them?
Do different animals deserve different moral consideration?
Is sentience sufficient for moral standing or are other capacities required?
How do domestication and dependency affect our obligations?
Consider Practical Implications
How different frameworks apply to animal agriculture, research, pets
What policies follow from rights-based vs. interest-based approaches
Whether rights claims are compatible with current institutional structures
Balance between human and non-human animal considerations
Practical feasibility of implementing different ethical frameworks
Evaluate Historical Progression
Trace development from indirect duties (Locke, Kant) to direct consideration
Show how scientific understanding has influenced ethical theories
Examine how religious and cultural views have shaped animal ethics
Consider how changing human-animal relationships affect ethical views
Analyze how Lockean natural law tradition has evolved regarding animals
Develop a Nuanced Position
Consider whether rights and interests are complementary rather than opposed
Evaluate whether different frameworks apply to different contexts
Address potential conflicts between animal and environmental ethics
Recognize practical constraints while maintaining ethical aspirations
Consider how Lockean foundation might support contemporary approaches
Philosophy Q3:
"When civilians are the main target, there's no need to consider the cause. That's terrorism; it's evil." Is this correct?
Classical and Enlightenment Perspectives
John Locke - "Second Treatise of Government" (1689)
Argues legitimate political power cannot include arbitrary power to harm citizens
Maintains that natural rights (life, liberty, property) cannot be violated even for political ends
While defending right to revolution against tyranny, suggests resistance must respect fundamental rights
Would condemn civilian targeting as violating the natural law that governs even pre-political society
Key insight: Political actions must respect fundamental natural rights regardless of cause
2. Thomas Hobbes - "Leviathan" (1651)
Views sovereign's primary duty as protecting citizens from harm and violent death
Considers indiscriminate violence a return to the chaotic "state of nature"
Would condemn targeting civilians as undermining social order and the sovereignty contract
Key insight: Security of civilians is the fundamental purpose of political society
3. Immanuel Kant - "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" (1785)
Categorical imperative prohibits using persons merely as means to ends
Targeting civilians treats them purely instrumentally, violating human dignity
Rejects consequentialist justifications for immoral acts
Key insight: Good ends cannot justify evil means; human dignity is inviolable
4. Just War Theory - Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
Establishes principle of non-combatant immunity
Requires proportionality and discrimination in use of force
Distinguishes between jus ad bellum (just cause) and jus in bello (just methods)
Key insight: Even justified wars must follow moral rules about civilian protection
5. Hannah Arendt - "On Violence" (1970) and "Eichmann in Jerusalem" (1963)
Distinguishes between power (legitimate) and violence (destructive)
Examines how violence ultimately undermines political objectives
Analyzes "banality of evil" when violence becomes bureaucratized
Key insight: Violence against civilians destroys the political realm rather than creates it
6. Frantz Fanon - "The Wretched of the Earth" (1961)
Examines colonial violence and resistance in liberation movements
Discusses psychological trauma that leads to violent resistance
While supporting liberation, doesn't endorse all tactical approaches
Key insight: Structural violence precedes and contextualizes terrorist acts
Contemporary Sources
Michael Walzer - "Just and Unjust Wars" (1977)
Maintains strict separation between justice of cause and justice in conduct
Argues civilian immunity is fundamental to war ethics
Introduces controversial "supreme emergency" exemption for existential threats
Key insight: Targeting civilians violates war convention regardless of cause, with possible extreme exceptions
2. Jean Bethke Elshtain - "Just War Against Terror" (2003)
Applies just war principles to terrorism evaluation
Argues civilians must never be deliberately targeted
Examines how religious justifications for terrorism fail
Key insight: Terrorism fundamentally violates just war principles
3. Igor Primoratz - "Terrorism: A Philosophical Investigation" (2013)
Defines terrorism specifically as targeting non-combatants for political purposes
Rejects consequentialist justifications for terrorism
Evaluates different definitions of terrorism
Key insight: Targeting civilians for intimidation is the defining feature of terrorism
4. Virginia Held - "How Terrorism is Wrong" (2008)
Provides feminist critique of both terrorism and counterterrorism
Examines care ethics in relation to political violence
Considers how gendered perspectives influence terrorism discourse
Key insight: Violence against civilians violates fundamentals of care and relationship
5. C.A.J. Coady - "Morality and Political Violence" (2008)
Distinguishes between various forms of political violence
Examines whether terrorism is distinctively wrong compared to other violence
Questions conventional moral asymmetries between state and non-state violence
Key insight: Civilian targeting is wrong but definitions of terrorism often politically selective
6. Uwe Steinhoff - "On the Ethics of War and Terrorism" (2007)
Challenges conventional moral asymmetry between state and non-state violence
Questions whether terrorism is always worse than conventional warfare
Examines how "civilian" status is defined and applied in conflicts
Key insight: Moral evaluation should apply consistently to both state and non-state actors
7. Ted Honderich - "After the Terror" (2002)
Examines root causes that lead to terrorist activities
Questions whether Western policies create conditions for terrorism
Does not justify terrorism but complicates moral evaluation
Key insight: Understanding causes doesn't justify methods but is necessary for full analysis
8. Noam Chomsky - "9-11" (2001) and "Pirates and Emperors" (1986)
Critiques how terrorism is defined to exclude state violence
Examines double standards in terrorism discourse
Argues state terrorism often exceeds non-state terrorism in scale
Key insight: Definition of terrorism often applied selectively based on power relations
9. David Rodin - "War and Self-Defense" (2002)
Analyzes when collective violence can be justified through self-defense
Questions whether non-state actors can claim right to use violence
Examines relationship between individual and collective rights
Key insight: Self-defense has moral limits that prohibit targeting uninvolved parties
10. Jeff McMahan - "Killing in War" (2009)
Challenges traditional separation between jus ad bellum and jus in bello
Argues moral status of combatants depends partly on justice of their cause
Maintains stronger constraints against harming civilians than combatants
Key insight: Justice of cause does affect moral evaluation but doesn't justify civilian targeting
11. UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004)
Defines terrorism as criminal acts against civilians to intimidate or compel
Declares such acts "unjustifiable regardless of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious considerations"
Provides international legal framework for prohibition
Key insight: International consensus holds civilian targeting cannot be justified by cause
12. Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols (1949/1977)
Establishes legal protection for civilians in armed conflict
Prohibits making civilians the object of attack in all circumstances
Distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants
Key insight: International humanitarian law considers civilian targeting illegal regardless of context
Formulating an Answer: Guidance
Define key terms:
Clarify what constitutes "civilian" status in different contexts
Differentiate between direct targeting and foreseeable civilian casualties
Examine how "terrorism" is defined in different traditions
Consider various conceptions of "evil" across philosophical frameworks
Consider competing ethical frameworks:
Deontological (Kant): Targeting civilians violates categorical moral duties
Consequentialist (Mill): Evaluate based on outcomes and potential justifications
Natural rights (Locke): Civilian targeting violates fundamental right to life
Virtue ethics: What character traits are expressed in civilian targeting?
Care ethics: How does civilian targeting damage human relationships?
Explore key tensions:
Absolute prohibition vs. contextual evaluation
Moral equivalence between state and non-state violence
Relationship between structural violence and responsive violence
How power imbalances affect moral evaluation
Whether focusing only on methods obscures important questions about causes
Address challenging questions:
Does labeling all civilian targeting "terrorism" and "evil" preclude understanding causes?
Are there meaningful distinctions between different forms of civilian harm?
Does the statement apply equally to state military actions that harm civilians?
How does intention figure into moral evaluation of civilian casualties?
Can extreme circumstances ever justify otherwise prohibited tactics?
Develop a nuanced position that:
Acknowledges the strong moral presumption against civilian targeting
Considers historical and political contexts without moral relativism
Applies consistent standards to all actors regardless of power or status
Recognizes the relationship between causes and methods without allowing the former to justify the latter
Examines how the labels "terrorism" and "evil" function in political discourse
Reference examples across history:
Compare insurgencies with different political goals and methods
Examine state bombing campaigns and their justifications
Consider liberation movements and their tactical choices
Analyze how different philosophical traditions have evaluated specific cases
If you are overwhelmed by the number of sources and complexity of answering these questions, we understand. English teachers don't prepare high school students to tackle such formidable challenges in the humanities. But we do. Schedule a free consultation with a philosophy essay writing expert today and learn how to unpack all of these sources to write a coherent and logically sound 2000 word essay which will earn you a competitive placing in this competition and impress admission officers.
