Jules asked:

Is it possible to justify terrorism?

============

To justify an action is to show it was the right thing to do, even if it appeared to be wrong. That is
different from excusing the action, which is to try to show that even if the action is wrong, there are
mitigating explanations for why it was done (excuses like, "it was an accident" or "it was due to
ignorance.")

Terrorism is a means to an end (but not, usually, and end in itself.) To justify terrorism, you would
have to show that the end for the terrorism was morally worth the evil of terrorism. You would, in
addition, have to show that the same end could not have been accomplished by some other means.
When terrorism involves (as it does) the deliberate targeting and harming of innocents, it seem to me
very difficult to justify (or to show that despite appearances, the deliberate targeting and harming of
innocent people, is right. Doesn't it to you?

Ken Stern

The definition of justification is that to justify is to show something "apt or right" about the action or
just to show something positive about it (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). So, yes, you can
'justify' terrorism. It will be right relative to the cause of the terrorists. Highly apt.

Moral justification is another matter. Is it good? I doubt it is good if justification is relative to a few
people's interests. That isn't what we mean by a moral good. In any case, what is good doesn't call
out for justification. If you can't see what is good or bad, you are simply not part of a human
evaluation scheme.

There were several answers on this a while back which you will be able to find on the Philosophos
Search Engine.

Rachel Browne