why are terrorist killings more worthy of condemnation than other forms of murder?

Answer the following essay questions. To adequately answer these questions, it is expected that students will submit three pages of writing, one page per essay question. Your essays should be in 12-point font, 1 inch margins, and double spaced. Question 2 According to Nagel (in What is Wrong with Terrorism?), why are terrorist killings more worthy of condemnation than other forms of murder? In debates concerning euthanasia, it is not uncommon to distinguish between direct and indirect actions. Some allow that it might be morally permissible to indirectly cause the death of someone (e.g., withhold life sustaining treatment) but not morally permissible to directly cause their death (e.g., supply them with a lethal injection). Explain how this direct/indirect distinction arises in Negals account of the moral condemnation of terrorism. Is this distinction correct? Is there an important moral distinction between (a) directly aiming at bringing about some result and (b) engaging in activities that one knows will indirectly bring about the same result? Justify your answer. Question 3 Luban (in Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb) claims that the Ticking Bomb scenario is impractical. It obscures the real moral issues and the complexities that arise with torturing individuals in the service of intelligence gathering. Explain, in detail, two of the complexities that Luban suggests are ignored in the Ticking Bomb scenario. Provide an alternative scenario that addresses these complexities. Is torture morally acceptable in that scenario? Justify your answer.