Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values,reason, mind, and language
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".
The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.
The Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the questions asked in each area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be rigidly maintained, for one area overlaps into the others. A. Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and metaphysical status. More often than not, the term "value theory" is used instead of "axiology" in contemporary discussions even though the term “theory of value” is used with respect to the value or price of goods and services in economics.
Axiology is usually divided into two main parts.
Ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral problems: e.g., (1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good or desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy.
Æsthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with judgments of sense, taste, and emotion. B. Epistemology: the study of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the study of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge.

C. Ontology or Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. Metaphysics deals with the so-called first principles of the natural order and "the ultimate generalizations available to the human intellect." Specifically, ontology seeks to indentify and establish the relationships between the categories, if any, of the types of existent things.

Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term comes from the Greek word ἠθικός ethikos from ἦθος ethos, which means "custom, habit". The superfield within philosophy known as axiology includes both ethics and aesthetics and is unified by each sub-branch's concern with value.[2] Philosophical ethics investigates what is the best way for humans to live, and what kinds of actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances. Ethics may be divided into three major areas of study:[1] * Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined * Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action * Applied ethics draws upon ethical theory in order to ask what a person is obligated to do in some very specific situation, or within some particular domain of action (such as business)
Related fields are moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory. Ethics seeks to resolve questions dealing with human morality—concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good or right and those that are bad or wrong.[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from acode of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[1] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness."
Just war theory (jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists,policy makers, and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: "the right to go to war’' (jus ad bellum)and ‘'right conduct in war’' (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war.[1] Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory - jus post bellum - dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction.
Just War theory postulates that war, while very terrible, is not always the worst option. There may be responsibilities so important, atrocities which can be prevented or outcomes so undesirable they justify war.[2]
Thomas Aquinas[edit]
Nine hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas — an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism — used the authority of Augustine's arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be just:[14] * First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.) * Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace.) * Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[15] (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)

Preemptive war is a strike to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent. The classic example in recent history is the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Israel was aware that Egypt and Syria where about to invade. Instead of waiting, Israel struck first and successfully destroyed Egyptian air power before they were able to get their planes in the air. This preemptive strike was justified by Israel because war with the Arabs was virtually an inevitability, and they wished to gain the upper hand.
The problem
A pre-emptive strike can conflict with the doctrine of the just war in two ways: * it is carried out before the other side attacks with military force, and so appears to make the side carrying out the strike the aggressor * it is usually carried out before a formal declaration of war

Preventive war is something else altogether. It is war designed to prevent imagined future war. It is based on a set of suppositions, hypotheses which could prove true or false. At its heart is the idea — our enemies our strong now, but they will be even stronger in the future. Better to attack them sooner rather than later. Better to defeat them before they get any stronger.
Terrorism is not new and even though it has been used since the early times of recorded history, it can be relatively hard to define terrorism.

Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutralmilitary personnel or civilians). Another common definition sees terrorism as political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors. Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.[1][2] In theinternational community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal-law definition.[3][4]

WHAT JIHAD IS * The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving. * The arabic word for war is: "al-harb". * In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam. * If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted. * Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment. * In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important. * The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam. * Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.
WHAT JIHAD IS NOT * Jihad is not a violent concept. * Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims. * Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam. * Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications
The term hirabah refers to public terrorism in a war against society and civilization. In legal terminology it is defined as “spreading mischief in the land,” but its precise meaning, as defined by Professor Khalid Abou el Fadl, is “killing by stealth and targeting a defenseless victim in a way intended to cause terror in society.” This is the Islamic definition of terrorism. It is the very opposite of jihad. 1. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
Violence, Terrorism and Justice by Christopher Morris and R.G. Frey I. What is Terrorism? A. The use of violence, usually to achieve social or political goals, with the following frequently conjoined characteristics: (1) violence is designed to create terror, fear, or panic in a population. (2) the use of violence is usually random or arbitrary. (3) non-combatants or “innocents” are often the target. (a) this feature is more controversial given that terrorists often claim that their victims are not innocent. This gives rise to an interesting question, namely, what does it mean for people to be innocent or not responsible for the actions of, for example, their government? II. Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified? A. Act Utilitarianism: in principle could condone the use of terrorism on occasion, if the act of terrorism maximized the well-being of all those affected by an act of terrorism over some peaceful alternative. So, groups broader than those sponsoring and benefitting from the terrorism would have to be considered. (1) Necessary questions to ask (a) Is the terrorist’s means the most effective and efficient way to achieve the desired goal? Here we would have to compare terrorism with other peaceful means to achieve sociopolitical ends, such as non-violent civil disobedience and passive resistance, boycotts etc. These alternative means seem more likely to be efficient and effective, given that they do not tend to harden the resistance of the targeted group as much as terrorism, and given that they often bolster sympathy from outsiders and make it more difficult for aggressors to continue their aggression. (b) Is the goal desirable enough to justify the terrorists horrible methods? For example, is the reunification of Ireland worth the suffering and loss inflicted by the IRA? The key for consequentialists, is that the party we have to consider is not just the IRA but those who are affected by their acts of terror. (2) Rectifying Injustice: given the difficulty of justifying acts of terrorism by appeal to achieving socio-political goals, such as the reclamation of territory or the elimination of unwanted cultural influence, terrorists often try to justify terrorism by claiming that their acts are concerned with rectifying or eliminating injustice. This is problematic for two reasons: (a) One problem, of course, is that there is usually something to be said to support both sides of the conflict, hence the parties do not fall so neatly into the “just” and “unjust” categories. This makes the endeavor to rectify injustice through terrorism different from using legal punishment to rectify the injustice of a murder. (b) Moreover, can we rectify one injustice without perpetrating another? (3) Conclusion: Although it is theoretically possible to justify terrorism using consequentialist reasoning, doing so in practice seems to be quite difficult. B. Non-Consequentialist Theories (1) The Intentional Killing of Innocents: the Kantian tradition will impose an indefeasible prohibition against the intentional killing of the innocent. Calling this prohibition “indefeasible” means that an innocent person can never be intentionally killed, regardless of how favorable the consequences may be. (Think, for example, of Kant’s second categorical imperative: if one were to blow up a cafe as a means to obtain some political goal and to strike fear in a population, innocent human lives would be used merely as a means to achieve such ends). Such an indefeasible prohibition against the intentional killing of innocents would oftentimes condemn terrorist acts. (a) constraints on responses to terrorism: the Kantian tradition would place constraints on how we may respond to terrorists. For example, we could not indiscriminately carpet bomb a city to deter terrorists from striking again, since we too would be targeting innocents to achieve a similar end, namely striking fear in the heart of people--in our case, the terrorists. i. natural rights: some non-consequentialist thinkers appeal to the notion of natural rights, or entitlements we have for no other reason than that we are human. Since we retain our humanity until death, these rights are inalienable and cannot be forfeited regardless of one’s actions. So, while such theorists would condemn terrorism, terrorists themselves would also retain their moral standing, in which case we would be limited in our capacity to respond to them. III. Who is Innocent? A. Two Approaches: Most non-consequentialist moral theories prohibit the intentional targeting of the innocent, which is why they often condemn acts of terrorism. However, terrorists often claim that their victims are not really innocent. (1) Moral or Juridical Sense of Innocence: someone is not innocent in this sense if he has committed some moral or legal transgression. Terrorists who are concerned with targeting those who they believed were not innocent in this sense might target certain political figures or nationalities who they think violated some moral or legal standard. (2) Causal Innocence: someone can lack innocence in this sense so long as he poses a treat, even if he does not have culpability. A terrorist concerned to target those who are not innocent in this sense might target who financially or electorally support a repressive regime. The September 11th terrorists might have believed that inhabitants of the World Trade Center lacked this type of innocence. B. Analogies Between Terrorism and other Indiscriminate Killing: there is a clear similarity between terrorism and other indiscriminate acts of killing, such as the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings were designed to create terror in a population and intentionally targeted innocents as a means to do so. Moreover, like terrorism, the use of force was random or arbitrary, since people and buildings with little or no political or social significance were targeted. This analogy is significant, I think, because people of our country tend to think that our preferred type of violent behavior is usually markedly different from that of so-called “terrorists”. Moreover, in the case of Dresden and Tokyo, our indiscriminate killing was as ineffective in achieving its goals as more paradigmatically terrorist acts are. Moreover, if Dresden and Tokyo are actions of which one approves, it is difficult to broadly claim that all acts of terrorism are impermissible. IV. What are the Ideological Roots of Terrorism? Robert L. Philips contends that the intellectual sources of terrorism spring from three Western ideas, popular sovereignty, self-determination, and consequentialism. How so? A. Popular Sovereignty: this is the view that human beings are born free and equal and have a right to an equal share of political power. They exercise this power either by becoming politicians themselves or, more commonly, by voting. Hence, the doctrine of popular sovereignty identifies the state with “the people”. So how is this idea behind terrorism? Well, if the people are identified with the state, then they are responsible for the actions of the state of which they are a part. And if that state commits an injustice in the eyes of a particular group, then that particular group can hold the ordinary citizens of that state responsible. Or so they believe. B. Self-Determination: this is the view that “a people” has the right to determine its own destiny and the disposition of the land on which it lives without intervention from a third party. This idea lends support to terrorism since terrorists often give it as the principle justification for their actions (think of the IRA and Palestinian terrorists). The idea itself is dangerously vague and is often exploited by both sides. For instance, Protestants in N. Ireland claim that they have a right as “a people” to determine their own destiny, which is to remain part of the UK, while Catholic nationalists identify “the people” with the island of Ireland as a whole. C. Ethical Consequentialism: in general, this can make permissible acts leading to great harm for the ultimate purpose of achieving some good. Hence, non-combatants may be killed for the sake of obtaining some social or political objective. This way of thinking stands in marked contrast with categorical moral principles which prohibit the intentional killing of innocents regardless of the consequences. D. Putting the pieces together: a terrorist organization believes are entitled to determine its own destiny and the disposition of the land on which they live (self-determination). If a third party interferes with that right, then the citizens of that third party should be held responsible (popular sovereignty). Finally, those non-combatants may be killed for the sake of achieving the ultimate goal of self-determination. E. The Solution: Philips suggests that we should jettison ethical consequentialism as a solution to the problem of terrorism. The principles of popular sovereignty and selfdetermination seem like notions that are worth preserving over the doctrine of ethical consequentialism.