Bitte benutzen Sie diese Kennung, um auf die Ressource zu verweisen: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11780/550
Langanzeige der Metadaten
DC ElementWertSprache
dc.contributor.authorWitte, Erich H.
dc.contributor.authorHalverscheid, Susanne
dc.date.accessioned2008-12-12
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-01T10:30:41Z-
dc.date.available2008-12-12
dc.date.available2015-12-01T10:30:41Z-
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.otherurn:nbn:de:bsz:291-psydok-23330-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11780/550-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study is to examine the underlying ethical positions of statements that try to justify acts of war and terrorism. Similarities and differences will be analyzed within the framework of empirical ethics research. With respect to the current political situation, examples of war and terror from both Western and Arabian parties and terrorist organizations are chosen. The cases are exemplified by selected speeches and explanations from (1) the American Government justifying the military strikes in Afghanistan (2001- ) and the war in Iraq (2003- ) (2) the Red Army Faction (RAF) justifying terrorist attacks that they perpetrated in Germany between 1972 and 1984 (3) the former President of Iraq justifying the war against Iran (1980-1988), and (4) members of Al-Qaeda justifying terrorist acts between 2001 and 2004. In a first rating procedure, statements containing justifications of politically motivated violence will be identified based upon argumentation analysis. The selected statements will then be rated in a second process in regard to the underlying ethics. The justification patterns will be presented, compared, and discussed in respect to the interaction of culture and type of aggression. The results illustrate distinctive argumentation patterns for each group examined. The inference-statistical comparison reveals significant differences between the types of aggression as well as between Western and Arabian countries, whereas the cultural factor proves to be more essential.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesHamburger Forschungsberichte zur Sozialpsychologie;70
dc.rightspubl-ohne-podde
dc.rights.urihttp://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/doku/lic_ohne_pod.phpde
dc.subject.classificationKriegde
dc.subject.classificationTerrorismusde
dc.subject.classificationMoralde
dc.subject.classificationGewaltde
dc.subject.classificationEthikde
dc.subject.classificationWertde
dc.subject.classificationDiskursanalysede
ubs.subject.ddc150
dc.subject.otherKriegde
dc.subject.otherTerrorismusde
dc.subject.otherMoralde
dc.subject.otherGewaltde
dc.subject.otherEthikde
dc.subject.otherSoziale Wertede
dc.subject.otherPersönliche Wertede
dc.subject.otherDiskursanalysede
dc.subject.otherPrescriptive Attribution Theoryen
dc.subject.otherWaren
dc.subject.otherTerrorismen
dc.subject.otherJustificationen
dc.titleJustification of War and Terrorism. A Comparative Case Study examining Ethical Positions based on Prescriptive Attribution Theoryen
dc.typeReport (Bericht)
dc.date.updated2014-03-07
ubs.publikation.typreport
ubs.institutUniversität Hamburg: Fachbereich Psychologie
ubs.fakultaetPsychologie: Hochschulen Deutschland
Enthalten in den Sammlungen:PsyDok

Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Datei Beschreibung GrößeFormat 
HAFOS_70.pdf416,39 kBAdobe PDFÖffnen/Anzeigen


Alle Ressourcen in diesem Repository sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.