I now want to propose a definition of terrorism that avoids the defects of the views I have discussed. Unlike biased, propagandistic ideas about terrorism, it provides neutral criteria for classifying actions as terrorist acts. These criteria describe features of actions themselves and omit any reference to the groups that carry them out. Unlike the “one man's terrorist” slogan, the definition identifies objective features as the essential characteristics of terrorism and thus avoids seeing terrorism as subjective or relative to observers.

Definition: Terrorist acts:

1. 1. are acts of serious, deliberate violence or credible threats of such acts;

2. 2. are committed in order to promote a political or social agenda;

3. 3. generally target limited numbers of people but aim to influence a larger group and/or the leaders who make decisions for the group;

4. 4. intentionally kill or injure innocent people or pose a threat of serious harm to them.

The definition has several parts which, together, differentiate terrorist acts from other actions. Each part highlights a type of feature and then specifies the form of that feature that characterizes terrorist acts. These features are:

1. 1. the general type of action: violent;

2. 2. the general type of goal: promoting a political/social agenda;

3. 3. the strategy behind the action: harming some people to influence others;

4. 4. the nature of the victims: innocent people.

In order to evaluate this definition, we should consider several questions. Does it avoid the pitfalls of subjectivism and political bias? Could it be accepted by people who have different political and moral aims?