Unlawful Environmental Protest: Moral Stand or Civil Disobedience?
Explore the ethical dilemma of unlawful environmental protests and civil disobedience, delving into moral justifiability and different forms of dissent like conscientious evasion, refusal, militant action, and civil disobedience. Contemplate historical examples such as the Underground Railroad and Thoreau's tax refusal, alongside modern situations. Is it ever morally permissible to disobey the law for a cause?
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
CHAPTER 14 ENVIRONMENTAL DISOBEDIENCE
ISSUE: IS UNLAWFUL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEST EVER MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE? IF SO, WHEN?
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL FORMS OF PROTEST 1. CONSCIENTIOUS EVASION: A COVERT ACT TO EVADE A LAW OR LAWFUL COMMAND, MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL ETHICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
EXAMPLE: HIDING RUNAWAY SLAVES AS PART OF THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PROTEST (CONT D): 2. CONSCIENTIOUS REFUSAL: A REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A LAW OR LAWFUL COMMAND, MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL ETHICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PROTEST (CONT D): EXAMPLE: THOREAU S REFUSAL TO PAY HIS POLL TAX IN PROTEST OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PROTEST (CONT D): 3. MILITANT ACTION: A FORM OF ILLEGAL PROTEST OR DIRECT ACTION THAT INVOLVES VIOLENCE, COERCION, OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PROTEST (CONT D): EXAMPLE: DISABLING A BULLDOZER TO PROTEST AGAINST CLEAR-CUTTING A FOREST.
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PROTEST (CONT D): 4. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: A NONVIOLENT, DELIBERATELY UNLAWFUL ACT OF PROTEST, USUALLY DONE WITH THE AIM OF BRINGING ABOUT A CHANGE IN THE LAW OR THE POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
FORMS OF UNLAWFUL PROTEST (CONT D): EXAMPLE: OCCUPYING THE OFFICE OF A SCIENCE DEAN TO PROTEST ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION ON CAMPUS.
SOME PEOPLE CLAIM THAT IT IS NEVER MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE TO DISOBEY ANY LAW. BUT WHAT OF SPEEDING TO RUSH A CRITICALLY INJURED CHILD TO THE HOSPITAL? OR MARTIN LUTHER KING S CAMPAIGN OF SIT-INS IN LUNCH COUNTERS?
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ILLEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEST IS EVER MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE IS COMPLICATED BY DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE IMPORTANCE OR ADVISABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN GENERAL, THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF ILLEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEST IS CLEAREST IN CASES WHERE A CLEAR- CUT HARM CAN BE PREVENTED.
THE HARDEST FORM OF CONSCIENTIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL LAWBREAKING TO JUSTIFY IS MILITANT ACTION. WHY?
REASONS WHY MILITANT ACTION ARE HARD TO JUSTIFY: * INVOLVE SERIOUS ACTS OF LAWBREAKING INVOLVING FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR PROPERTY DESTRUCTION.
REASONS WHY MILITANT ACTION ARE HARD TO JUSTIFY: * SHOW BLATANT DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW *OFTEN CREATE RISKS OF HARM TO INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES OR TO THE LAWBREAKERS THEMSELVES.
REASONS WHY MILITANT ACTION ARE HARD TO JUSTIFY (CONT D): * RARELY ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES AND OFTEN CREATE A SIGNIFICANT BACKLASH * CAN STOKE FEARS IN A MANNER ANALOGOUS TO TERRORISM.
REASONS WHY MILITANT ACTION ARE HARD TO JUSTIFY (CONT D): * CAN RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT PRISON TIME, WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THIS ENTAILS FOR THE LAWBREAKER AND FOR SOCIETY.
FOR SUCH REASONS, MILITANT ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS (E.G., ECOSABOTAGE) WILL RARELY BE JUSTIFIED. BUT WE CAN IMAGINE EXTREME CASES WHERE THEY MIGHT BE (E.G., DISABLING AN AIRPLANE TO PREVENT A CRAZED, GLUE- SNIFFING CROP DUSTER FROM KILLING A STAND OF REDWOOD TREES).
LETS FOCUS ON CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, WHICH IS PRESUMABLY THE EASIEST FORM OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWBREAKING TO JUSTIFY BECAUSE IT MANIFESTS RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND OFTEN DOES NOT DEPEND ON PERSONAL ETHICAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUNDS THAT MAY NOT BE WIDELY SHARED.
THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAN BE ADDRESSED FROM EITHER A UTILITARIAN OR A DUTY-CENTERED ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE.
SOME RELEVANT QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS FROM A UTILITARIAN PERSPECTIVE: 1. HOW SERIOUS IS THE HARM OR EVIL BEING PROTESTED? 2. HOW URGENT IS THE NEED TO PREVENT THAT HARM OR EVIL?
UTILITARIAN FACTORS (CONT D): 3. ARE THE PROTESTORS GOALS WIDELY SHARED BY THE COMMUNITY? 4. HAVE LEGAL MEANS FOR ADDRESSING THE HARM BEEN ACTIVELY PURSUED OR EXHAUSTED?
UTILITARIAN FACTORS (CONT D): 5. HOW SERIOUS A CRIME WILL THE PROTEST INVOLVE? 6. IS THE PROTEST LIKELY TO RESORT IN VIOLENCE?
UTILITARIAN FACTORS (CONT D): 7. WILL THE PROTEST LIKELY RESULT IN GREAT EXPENSE OR INCONVENIENCE? 8. WILL A BAD EXAMPLE BE SET?
UTILITARIAN FACTORS (CONT D): 9. WILL THE PROTEST RESULT IN DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW? 10. WILL THERE BE A SERIOUS BACKLASH AGAINST THE PROTESTER AND THEIR CAUSE?
UTILITARIAN FACTORS (CONT D): 11. IS THE PROTEST LIKELY TO SUCCEED, OR WILL IT BE (IN THE WORDS OF ANIMAL HOUSE ) A FUTILE AND STUPID GESTURE ?
FROM A DUTY-CENTERED ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE, MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS WILL ALSO BE RELEVANT (E.G., THE PRESUMPTIVE WRONGNESS OF ACTS THAT RESULT IN VIOLENCE OR CAUSE DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW).
OTHER ETHICAL PRINCIPLES THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT FROM A DUTY-CENTERED PERSPECTIVE INCLUDE: * OBEY THE LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE A COMPELLING REASON NOT TO. * THOSE WHO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A JUST AND WELL- ORDERED SOCIETY HAVE A DUTY, IN FAIRNESS, TO BEAR ITS JUST BURDENS, INCLUDING THE BURDEN OF LEGAL OBEDIENCE (PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PLAY).
BASSHAMS VIEW: IN GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE WILL BE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY BECAUSE SUCH ACTIONS RARELY SUCCEED, THE HARMS ARE USUALLY NOT IMMEDIATE, AND THE PROTESTOR S VIEWS ARE USUALLY NOT WIDELY SHARED BY SOCIETY. AGREE?
