This essay presents two distinct arguments: first, a definition of terrorism based on the deliberate creation of fear through violence targeting large populations, with analysis of motivations including political ideology and claims of freedom fighting; second, a critical examination of the Golden Rule's universal applicability, arguing that because individuals have different needs and preferences, treating others as one would wish to be treated does not always produce beneficial outcomes. The paper uses concrete examples—such as comfort preferences and blind dates—to illustrate why a one-size-fits-all ethical principle may fail to account for human diversity.
When thinking about concepts like "terrorist," it is often useful to examine the word itself and its origins. The word "terrorist" contains "terror," which points to the core function: a terrorist causes terror. A terrorist's primary aim is to make people feel afraid, with little regard for their lives or feelings. This indifference to human suffering distinguishes the terrorist from ordinary criminals or soldiers acting under military orders—the terrorist seeks fear as an end in itself.
A terrorist demonstrates no compassion for those he targets and shows particular disregard for families and innocent bystanders. His goal is singularly focused: to bring fear and pain. However, not every frightening act constitutes terrorism. A person who lives an ordinary life, cares for his family, and works cannot be called a terrorist. Terrorism requires a deliberate campaign of violence designed to create widespread fear.
The scale of the act matters significantly. Terrorism involves creating fear across large populations or even entire countries, not merely frightening one or two people. The terrorist achieves this through coordinated attacks—bombing, mass killing, or other large-scale violence—that target many people simultaneously. Without this scale and systematic intent to create mass fear, an act of violence is not terrorism.
Terrorists almost always employ violence as their primary method. Their actions result in death and injury, leaving survivors fearful of future attacks and living in constant dread. However, violence alone does not define terrorism; the motive and psychological intent do. Some terrorists justify their actions by claiming to fight for liberation or freedom from perceived oppression. These actors call themselves "freedom fighters," which sounds more sympathetic than "terrorist," yet their methods remain identical: they kill innocent people to achieve political or social goals. Like any terrorist, freedom fighters prioritize their own objectives over the lives of others and show no concern for collateral damage.
Terrorists also pursue explicitly political motives, ranging from nationalist agendas to ideological supremacy. Some seek to impose their cultural, religious, or political system on others and respond with violence when other nations or groups refuse to conform. This intolerance of difference fuels attacks on civilians, creating terror across regions and sometimes across continents. The result is consistent: innocent people die or are wounded, and entire populations live in fear of the next attack.
Whether motivated by claims of freedom, political ideology, or cultural supremacy, terrorists share a common psychological profile: they view violence as a justified means to their desired end and show no moral restraint regarding who suffers in the process.
The Golden Rule, famously articulated by Jesus Christ in the Bible, states: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This principle suggests that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated—that we should extend to others the same kindness, respect, and behavior we desire for ourselves. On its surface, the Golden Rule appears to be a universal ethical principle applicable across all human interactions and cultures.
However, the question arises: Is this principle always true in all cases? Can a single rule, applied uniformly, account for the infinite variety of human preferences and needs?
I do not believe the Golden Rule is universally applicable. The reason is that people have different likes, dislikes, needs, and preferences. What brings comfort to one person may distress another, and applying the same action to everyone will inevitably fail in many cases.
"How individual differences undermine the rule's application"
Just because I want a person to do something for me in a certain situation does not mean that another person would want the same thing from me. We are all different people with different wants and needs. The Golden Rule, while valuable as a starting point for ethical thinking, is not accurate or applicable in every situation. A more nuanced approach—one that considers individual differences and asks people what they actually need rather than assuming their needs mirror our own—is necessary for truly ethical conduct.
You’re 69% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.