Dec 19, 2021 04:49 AM
(This post was last modified: Dec 19, 2021 04:51 AM by C C.)
Ethics of eco-sabotage: Is it ever worth blowing up power stations in an act of environmental activism?
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/...-activism/
EXCERPTS: . . . "I am in favour of destroying machines, property – not harming people. That’s a very important distinction.” These were the words of Andreas Malm, a climate activist and senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden, on a podcast where he argued that the climate movement should rethink its roots in nonviolence.
In his book, How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire, Malm agitates for fossil-fuel infrastructure’s “intelligent sabotage” to prevent more carbon from being emitted into the atmosphere.
The basis of Malm’s argument has been given a jolt of urgency with the most recent accounting of the science. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report reaffirms that the world only has until the end of this decade to avoid the 1.5°C global average temperature increase widely understood to be a threshold at which humanity can expect to experience the effects of dangerous climate change.
[...] But just how strong – philosophically – is the case for blowing up pipelines and power stations to save the world? The philosophers and ethicists DM168 spoke to had their reservations.
- - - - - -
Professor David Benatar responded [...] “I don’t think you’re going to be easily able to justify that kind of action… My general view is that there is a very strong presumption against resorting to violent means and in democracies to resort to illegal means ... I think it’s likely to cause a lot of misery in the short run; it’s also likely to harden rather than soften the attitudes of people who are sceptical about climate change, and I do not think it will have the desired effect.”
He continued that “some of these actions may actually be damaging to the environment. You blow up pipelines, [and] you can have leakage of dangerous materials into the environment. If you blow up power stations, you can have further negative effects on human wellbeing, and so I don’t think that the broadest picture is taken when people advocate this kind of violence.”
- - - - - -
Michaela Weiffenbach [...] offered ... “acts of eco-sabotage aim to dismantle existing power structures and reduce the harmful effects caused by climate change. However, one of the most ancient and fundamental ethical, philosophical questions is what is ‘the good life’. Knowledge of ‘the good life’ is indispensable to normative ethics and distinguishing right from wrong action.
“Eco-sabotage runs the risk of paternalism as it ascribes to others a particular conception of ‘the good life’ and promotes the good of others [acts of eco-sabotage] prior to any agreement or consent. It is philosophically relevant to know whether (1) it is possible to know what is intrinsically good (or bad) for us, (2) and if one can be morally justified in promoting the good of others.”
Weiffenbach added that “acts of eco-sabotage can, however, be justified by an appeal to consequentialism. A consequentialist theory judges whether an action is right or wrong by the consequences that the action has. Perhaps the most well-known example is utilitarianism. On this view, the consequences of an action are morally relevant as utilitarianism holds that best action produces the greatest good for the greatest number. According to utilitarianism, some acts of eco-sabotage might be permissible and ethically justified if – and only if – the consequence of the action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
- - - - - -
Johan Hattingh [...] shared his opinion ... “Personally, I do not think violence and sabotage is the way to go. It will just add to the oceans of violence we already have in this world, resolving nothing really and only giving the holders of power in the world an excuse to consolidate their positions with more violence.
“If a radical position in climate ethics compels us to get rid of the causes of climate change, we can achieve this in a much more effective way with passive resistance, like that of Mahatma Gandhi, by not playing the globalist-consumerist game any longer. I think there are enough people in the world able to do so, and perhaps even more who would be willing to do so if they only had the means,” said Hattingh.
“The change we need is more people who can say no to the frantic activisms we see all around us in the world; we want less of it, not more. Another bomb or another spike in a tree or on the road would just add to the violence; it will not break it.” (MORE - missing details)
The work of Moritz Schlick, his role in the Vienna Circle, & what might have been had he not been murdered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf-jlbQuSy4
INTRO: Moritz Schlick was the informal leader of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, mathematicians, and logicians who exerted huge influence on the course of twentieth-century philosophy.
While not as well known as some other members of the Circle, Schlick was nonetheless producing important work that ranged from the philosophy of physics and art to ethics and epistemology.
The Vienna Circle believed scientific philosophy could help stem the rise of fascism, putting them at odds with prevailing attitudes and, in 1936, this resulted in Schlick’s murder. We explore his work, his role in the Vienna Circle, and what might have been had Schlick lived longer.
Moritz Schlick - with David Edmonds, Maria Carla Galavotti, & Cheryl Misak
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Rf-jlbQuSy4
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/...-activism/
EXCERPTS: . . . "I am in favour of destroying machines, property – not harming people. That’s a very important distinction.” These were the words of Andreas Malm, a climate activist and senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden, on a podcast where he argued that the climate movement should rethink its roots in nonviolence.
In his book, How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire, Malm agitates for fossil-fuel infrastructure’s “intelligent sabotage” to prevent more carbon from being emitted into the atmosphere.
The basis of Malm’s argument has been given a jolt of urgency with the most recent accounting of the science. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report reaffirms that the world only has until the end of this decade to avoid the 1.5°C global average temperature increase widely understood to be a threshold at which humanity can expect to experience the effects of dangerous climate change.
[...] But just how strong – philosophically – is the case for blowing up pipelines and power stations to save the world? The philosophers and ethicists DM168 spoke to had their reservations.
- - - - - -
Professor David Benatar responded [...] “I don’t think you’re going to be easily able to justify that kind of action… My general view is that there is a very strong presumption against resorting to violent means and in democracies to resort to illegal means ... I think it’s likely to cause a lot of misery in the short run; it’s also likely to harden rather than soften the attitudes of people who are sceptical about climate change, and I do not think it will have the desired effect.”
He continued that “some of these actions may actually be damaging to the environment. You blow up pipelines, [and] you can have leakage of dangerous materials into the environment. If you blow up power stations, you can have further negative effects on human wellbeing, and so I don’t think that the broadest picture is taken when people advocate this kind of violence.”
- - - - - -
Michaela Weiffenbach [...] offered ... “acts of eco-sabotage aim to dismantle existing power structures and reduce the harmful effects caused by climate change. However, one of the most ancient and fundamental ethical, philosophical questions is what is ‘the good life’. Knowledge of ‘the good life’ is indispensable to normative ethics and distinguishing right from wrong action.
“Eco-sabotage runs the risk of paternalism as it ascribes to others a particular conception of ‘the good life’ and promotes the good of others [acts of eco-sabotage] prior to any agreement or consent. It is philosophically relevant to know whether (1) it is possible to know what is intrinsically good (or bad) for us, (2) and if one can be morally justified in promoting the good of others.”
Weiffenbach added that “acts of eco-sabotage can, however, be justified by an appeal to consequentialism. A consequentialist theory judges whether an action is right or wrong by the consequences that the action has. Perhaps the most well-known example is utilitarianism. On this view, the consequences of an action are morally relevant as utilitarianism holds that best action produces the greatest good for the greatest number. According to utilitarianism, some acts of eco-sabotage might be permissible and ethically justified if – and only if – the consequence of the action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
- - - - - -
Johan Hattingh [...] shared his opinion ... “Personally, I do not think violence and sabotage is the way to go. It will just add to the oceans of violence we already have in this world, resolving nothing really and only giving the holders of power in the world an excuse to consolidate their positions with more violence.
“If a radical position in climate ethics compels us to get rid of the causes of climate change, we can achieve this in a much more effective way with passive resistance, like that of Mahatma Gandhi, by not playing the globalist-consumerist game any longer. I think there are enough people in the world able to do so, and perhaps even more who would be willing to do so if they only had the means,” said Hattingh.
“The change we need is more people who can say no to the frantic activisms we see all around us in the world; we want less of it, not more. Another bomb or another spike in a tree or on the road would just add to the violence; it will not break it.” (MORE - missing details)
The work of Moritz Schlick, his role in the Vienna Circle, & what might have been had he not been murdered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf-jlbQuSy4
INTRO: Moritz Schlick was the informal leader of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, mathematicians, and logicians who exerted huge influence on the course of twentieth-century philosophy.
While not as well known as some other members of the Circle, Schlick was nonetheless producing important work that ranged from the philosophy of physics and art to ethics and epistemology.
The Vienna Circle believed scientific philosophy could help stem the rise of fascism, putting them at odds with prevailing attitudes and, in 1936, this resulted in Schlick’s murder. We explore his work, his role in the Vienna Circle, and what might have been had Schlick lived longer.
Moritz Schlick - with David Edmonds, Maria Carla Galavotti, & Cheryl Misak