Cooper’s Doctrine of Necessity
THE “DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY” JUSTIFICATION
H. H. A. Cooper (1977b, pp. 8–18) describes the process terrorists must undergo to justify their actions. He believes terrorists are motivated by the same things that motivate all human behavior. They have dreams and aspirations similar to those who receive socially acceptable rewards for their behavior, but terrorists have a problem. They cannot accept the world as it is, and though many people would join them in the rejection of current norms, terrorists also reject the possibility of peaceful means for social change. This is why they become terrorists.
Cooper argues terrorists may abhor violence, almost to the point of rejecting it completely. Most do not relish the thought of indiscriminate violence and murder. Still, Cooper says, terrorists are driven by their utter hatred of the social status quo. According to Cooper, the first step in becoming a terrorist is the violent rejection of normative society.
Although terrorists may not enjoy violence or wish to adopt terrorist methods, they are forced toward violence. Cooper says they cross the line into terrorism when they come to believe that continuance of the status quo is worse than the violence caused by acts of terrorism. He refers to this decision point as the acceptance of the “doctrine of necessity.”
According to Cooper’s analysis, terrorists must feel they are forced to turn to violence. Violence becomes necessary because there is no other alternative for correcting the injustices of contemporary society. This attitude engenders an ideology or doctrine of violence. Once potential terrorists accept the doctrine, they are free to engage in terrorism. The group reinforces individual decisions, and a campaign of terrorism can be undertaken. A doctrine of necessary violence justifies acts of terrorism, and once it is accepted, refraining from violence becomes immoral.