The Rationality of Suicide Terrorism

[July]

This is a topic that I studied in International Relations and found to be highly contested: Is suicide terrorism a rational act?

Rationality in political terms considers that (1) human beings base their behavior on rational calculations, (2) they act rationally when making choices, and (3) their choices are aimed at optimizing their pleasure or profit based on risk versus reward analysis.

In these terms, suicide terrorism on the part of the individual seems to be an irrational act, especially as viewed by Western culture. When survival is considered the basis of human motivation, the risk of suicide terrorism reaps no rewards that can overcome the risk, and in fact the anticipated outcome, of death. If a person’s main motivation is survival, then suicide terrorism is by its very nature an irrational act.

However, what if a person’s main motivation isn’t survival? For a person with religious duties as their primary motivation, suicide terrorism presents a more dynamic risk vs. reward scenario. Martyrdom has been and still is considered an honorable act in some religions, and the prospect of a divine reward, rather than a worldly reward, can be a powerful form of motivation.

Furthermore, what about suicide terrorism as an act on an organizational level? While it may not seem rational for an individual, it can be a powerful tool for an organization wishing to send a costly signal to its enemies. The rationality of organized suicide terrorism actually comes from what we perceive as its irrationality: the fact that someone is willing to break what we consider a crucial norm, that people value their own survival, is a frightening concept. It also presents room for escalation, as a way to convince the attack population that more attacks and ones of greater severity are possible.

Personally, I believe suicide terrorism is rational as an organization tool, and for a simple reason: it works to instill fear into its target audience. Which is even more impressive because in the United States, the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is around 0.000008% (http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/why-iraq-is-a-hideously-expensive/, http://www.mattbarr.com/archives/2006/09/your_chance_of.html).

So, how do people feel about the rationality of suicide terrorism on an individual and/or organizational level? Comments/critiques/criticism encouraged.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

It's hard to say because I'm not a suicide bomber so I don't exactly have the state of mind to make such a judgement about the "rationality" of my actions.

But honestly people do all sorts of things it's hard to believe that there aren't people willing to die for their religion.

It reminds me of the girl who was threatened at gunpoint with death if she admitted to being a Christian and then was promptly shot in the head. Other than the malicious nature of suicide bombing, these two instances aren't so different.

 

[Savon]

Not really much to say to be honest. Rationality is extremely subjective, and it depends entirely on what the persons goal is.

If the terrorists are accomplishing the goal they set for themselves for whatever reason, than their actions are rational by that standard. Most people would NEVER hold the standard these terrorists have, but it is a crazy, but nonetheless valid standard.

 

[Enzo]

^As he said bef'ore me there isn't really much to say about. If commiting suicide acts of terrorism is truly your goal, Congratulations you achieved that goal successfully.
However I am unsure if you should really call it a "Valid Standard"

 

[th3kuzinator]

Viewing the act through the lens of a suicide terrorist himself, it may as well be labeled rational.

Its as Savon said, rationality is EXTREMELY subjective and everyone posting in this thread probably has their own internal opinion of the world rationality.

Just looking at the case presented, i would argue that it is certainly not an innate act, as it goes against survival tendencies, yet it can be a rational act. Either through pressure or through weighing individual pros and cons, a suicide terrorist could make the rational decision that it would be in his best interest to give his life away for something he believes in. I think religion plays a huge factor in this decision, and if he feels he might attain a higher existence by following through with his action, it could be said that he is thinking rationally.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Personally, I believe suicide terrorism to be irrational on the part of whoever is commiting suicide. Of course, I couldn't fathom what must be going through their minds to make them do such a thing: religion, freedom on a bigger scale, etc.. I honestly, wouldn't want to. Of course, that's merely how I feel.

To the ones commiting the act, it's obvious they feel it is rational for whatever purpose they serve. They believe they'll get into heaven dying in their "holy war" as martyrs. The thing I see wrong with it, is that to me, it shows that the leaders merely see them as expendable tools. What's worse is, what if (for the sake of "what if" scenarios) there is no afterlife: no heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc.. What if we simply rot in the ground with no sense of sentience? At that point, it'd be a life completely wasted on mere flights of fancy. Though, to be fair, they wouldn't need to think about or regret having killed themselves, as they would simply be dead and nothing more.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Your "what if" scenario is valid albeit a little obvious. If anyone could have returned from the afterlife to inform the world of what lies beyond (and everyone believed him), the world would be a much different place. Even if there was no afterlife, true, there would be a wasted life, but the person would die thinking that he was helping his people and/or securing his place in history/heaven as a martyr. If there WAS no higher existence, he would simply die thinking he was doing the right thing and never learn otherwise. Not the worst case scenario, all things considered.

 

[ballin4life]

Any intentional action humans make must be rational.

Suicide bombers simply get the greatest amount of pleasure they can from killing other people along with themselves.

 

[Mike]

Any intentional action humans make must be rational.

People often make a decision and later realize they should have made a different one. People will attempt to rationalize before they make a decision, but it isn't necessarily rational.

 

[ballin4life]

Of course you can regret an action later, but the action that you took at the time was still rational. Out of all your possible options, you chose to do that one because you thought it would lead to the best outcome for you.

 

[Mr.-0]

Seeing as how they kill themselves, openly going against a natural instinct to survive, simply because of religion, I don't think it's rational. But also seeing as how they unlogically believe in their religion as true, and have been told from a young age of the rewards that they get, than yes, It's rational from their prespective, but not from any other. Pretty sure those commas were not put in good place. Also, I'm assuming you're talking about radical islamic terroist suicide bombers.

 

[Savon]

@Mr.0. You seem to be forgetting that there is no official standard for rationality. Going against the instinct to survive is not always irrational.

Hypothetically lets say that my entire family was being held hostage at gunpoint, and unless I sacrificed my own life they would be killed. Depending on how much I value my family, allowing myself to be killed to save them could be either rational or irrational. That one example shows the extreme subjectivity of what is considered rational or not.

And how can you say that they illogically believe that their religion in true? I am not really sure you can say somebody is being illogical for simply believing in their religion. You say that their rationality is only good from their point of view, but that doesn't that only support my point about the subjectivity of it all.

It seems like you are contradicting yourself in your post. You call them irrational for killing themselves because of religion and going against natural instincts, but you still say that they are rational from their religions point of view. Could you clarify?

 

[Mike]

Of course you can regret an action later, but the action that you took at the time was still rational. Out of all your possible options, you chose to do that one because you thought it would lead to the best outcome for you.

It was rationalized, but not necessarily rational. People will make an illogical argument to do something sometime; it's unavoidable.

 

[ballin4life]

It's all semantics about what you consider "rational"

I'm just saying that every deliberate action you take, you do because you think it will lead to the best outcome for you (where best = the one you want most).

 

[Savon]

It was rationalized, but not necessarily rational. People will make an illogical argument to do something sometime; it's unavoidable.

In that case what makes an action rational? What is the standard and cutoff point between a rational action and an irrational action that is not heavily biased towards a certain culture/lifestyle.?

 

[Claire Diviner]

An irrational decision from my viewpoint is any decision that goes against the instinct of survival where one sacrifices their own life, regardless of the drive to do so. In the "family taken hostage" scenario, sacrificing oneself to save one's family is irrational as it means the person willingly forgone the basic instinct of surviving, though as irrational as it may seem, it can also be seen as noble. I, personally, couldn't be as noble.

 

[Savon]

I am not sure if agree with your definition Sol. I can see where you are coming from, but that would basically make our entire world irrational. I do not think rationality can be such a black/white issue just by basing on life and death situations. The context of each situation is so major that you cannot just take it out of context in such a manner.
Take the family taken hostage scenario and raise the stakes.
Lets say that the entire world is being threatened by aliens. However these aliens will not destroy the earth if you sacrifice yourself to save the rest of the world. Are you still being irrational? What if the person who is giving up their life has nothing to live for? Lets say that the person is dying of cancer and will only live one more day regardless? Are they any more/less rational than a regular person put into the same situation? I think this example illustrates the importance of looking at the context of each situation rather than polarizing it as much as you did Sol

 

[Claire Diviner]

My point is that self-preservation is the core instinct in all humans (and life in general). Sacrificing oneself to save the world, even with nothing to lose is still taking away that instinct, as there are other alternatives than to simply off oneself. Suppose someone had only one more day to live due to some form of disease - to simply give up on life because of it would still be a waste, as they may never know if out of some freak-of-nature miracle, their ailment somehow manages to let up and the person somehow recovers.

I may be single-minded and see things quite black and white, but I also try to view things realistically and logically. If someone must die because of some misplaced sense of belief or self-righteousness, then far be it from me to prevent them from being another statistic of Social Darwinism.

 

[Mike]

In that case what makes an action rational? What is the standard and cutoff point between a rational action and an irrational action that is not heavily biased towards a certain culture/lifestyle.?

An action is rational if the reasoning behind it is consistent with logic.

For example,
Rational: Deciding to get a tattoo because you think it'll look awesome but later deciding that you don't want it anymore and regret getting it.

Irrational: Deciding to get a tattoo because it'll make you invincible.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think what ballin's saying is that decisions are rational decisions based on the process by which decisions are made. He's not speaking to the quality of the decision, simply that the thought process from decision to act = rationale. Humans must employ their rationale in order to make a decision in other words. Whether or not their rationale is flawed, or if they do so entirely or purposefully neglect parts, or are ignorant to certain facts, will affect the quality of the decision, but the decision itself will still be made irregardless, and it will have been arrived at through a rational process.

 

[JeKartaN1]

Whether Suicide Terrorism is rational or not. Suicide bombers blow themselves to pieces to kill non-believers of Islam, especially Christians. The whole war on Terror started because the Jihadist extremists wanted to cleanse the world of non-belivers.

 

[Dre89]

To be fair, terroism was a Christian invention.

 

[ballin4life]

No religion specifically invented terrorism. People invented terrorism.

 

[Dre89]

Ok, well Christians were the first to do it.

 

[_Keno_]

I would agree with ballin that something is done rationally if he/she believes the outcome will be the one he/she wants the most. Even self-preservation can be overtaken if somebody loves someone else, something else, or an idea more than him/herself.

I would consider terrorism to generally done by completely rational people, given that they fight for an ideal they consider worth their life, or for an afterlife. If I truly believed either of those, I would definitely fight and risk (or even go for certain) death.

The problem is that some people are "brainwashed" into believing certain things to be worth the risk/death.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I'd take a bullet for my chick. Sure that's not the best outcome for me, but TO me it is.
Haunt the hell out of the gunman, but whatev.

It's cause I prioritize her self preservation above mine.
I think it works the same with these people.
I would say that from their standpoint it is rational simply because they prioritize whatever benefit they believe would come out of blowing themselves up higher than self preservation.

At an organizational level mentioned in the OP: I can definitely see that. History has shown that suicide terrorism has been used. Right now we've got the heads of these terrorist organizations still alive and well, sending nobody's to blow themselves and others to kingdom come. Sent as a message? Think of 9/11 and the attempted Christmas day bombing.
If you count the Kamikaze pilots of Japan from back in the day, then its just one more thing to add.

Is it rational for that institution to send out living, breathing bombs? I would say it depends on the cards they are dealt and who's holding them but no doubt that they think its rational. If they didn't then they probably wouldn't do it.