Essay 2: What’s Wrong With Terrorism? In this essay I argue Thomas Nagel’s concept about terrorism being morally bad because of the non-combatant lost lives by defending that terrorism is bad, yet is rare and does not equate as much to the civilians that have lost their lives through daily life incidents and accidents (In the book, the sentence I am against is: “Terrorism, however, ignores this distinction”).Terrorism has happened often throughout the history of man and yet still has to be removed from society and the world. What is wrong is that it creates the fear of the unknown, which by all means the same as not knowing about the future: whether one will die by car or a disease. As Nagel says in his article “What’s Wrong With Terrorism”, the main goal is to prohibit the lose of a harmless person’s life. The life of a solider in war is different from that of a harmless human on the streets of Houston. Nagel focuses on that the lives lost is morally incorrect since they had done nothing to deserve such death. His…show more content… I am arguing that the problem with Nagel’s concept is that that he pursues that majority wise terrorism is the reason for loss of civilians, lost of lives that have done nothing to be harmed, and that terrorism is the only extension that creates a divide between all ways of death. He differentiates between being hurt or killed by a terrorist act in which anyone can die and between accidents or an incidents that could that happen globally adding up to huge amounts a year; targeting more innocents overall. No one is counted out even in such everyday cases, anyone could be the target. The specifics that he has is that no one is left out in terrorism, in that case, so aren’t lives of everyone on the roads, in stores, at homes, or in places in general; you are not safe in all places, you are not excluded, just like in terrorism, to Nagel’s