IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jrcm00/v7y2018i1p1-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Socio-Political Ethics of Fighting Terrorism with Extreme Self-Defense in USA: An Exploratory Insight

Author

Listed:
  • Maximiliano E. Korstanje

    (University of Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentina & University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Kenneth David Strang

    (School of Business and Economics, State University of New York, Queensbury, NY, USA & APPC Research Australia, Cammeray, Australia)

Abstract

In this study the authors adopted a post-positivist research design philosophy to explore the likelihood that Americans would support extreme self-defense policies like torture, reducing human rights or banning Muslims to fight against global terrorism, especially after 9/11 and in light of the Trump conservative government. The authors grounded their research questions into the literature to form hypotheses in a correlational design strategy which they tested using nonparametric statistics. They collected opinions from 3213 Americans during 2016-2017 about applying extreme self-defense tactics to combat global terrorism and how these opinions contrasted between those holding a conservative versus liberal or other individualistic socio-political ideology. The surprising results were that American citizens did not unanimously endorse banning Muslims (only 30% supported the policy and 6% were undecided) but the majority (51%) of participants sanctioned torture as a self-defense to combat global terrorism.

Suggested Citation

  • Maximiliano E. Korstanje & Kenneth David Strang, 2018. "Comparing the Socio-Political Ethics of Fighting Terrorism with Extreme Self-Defense in USA: An Exploratory Insight," International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management (IJRCM), IGI Global, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:igg:jrcm00:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/IJRCM.2018010101
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:igg:jrcm00:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.