In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions.

I've posted my first argument to show how Ted Kaczynski's motives were justified. If his motives aren't justified then his actions aren't as well. My opponent has decided not to attack Kaczynski's motives. Cons argument can be summarized by saying " Kaczynski's motives are good but his actions aren't". I'm going to go into my rebuttals now and then follow it up by addressing any justification for the unabomber's actions not covered in the rebuttals. Rebuttals, "The debate is whether or not the Unabomber is justified in his actions. He thought it was ok to send bombs with the purpose to harm or kill innocent people to send a political message. He ended the lives of three innocent people and changed the lives of twenty three others who were injured." The unabomber wasn't trying to send a political message. He declared war on the industrial-technological society that we've already established is causing extreme harm to the planet and it's inhabitants man and animal alike. A lot of the harm is physical and a lot psychological ( such as taking away the autonomy of man and beast ). These weren't innocent men he went after. Even if they were innocent, why is their well being more important then the billions of other people living on this planet. Kaczynski was a mathematician. He got out his pencil and paper ( no calculators he was against technology) and did the math. The math said sacrificing 26 but only 3 fully, to save billions was a good bet. I will get to how Kaczynski chose how targets after the rebuttals. "My opponent has listed a number of views which the Unabomber believed in some of which are caused solely by the industrialisation of the world some have many causes. This is however irrelevant in my view. Everyone has ideas and views they feel strongly on this cannot be used as an excuse to send bombs to kill or harm another human being." The unabomber's motivations are extremely relevant and important to understand. The unabomber didn't send bombs simply because he had strong views. Not all strong views would motivate the acts of war the unabomber carried out. Not all strong views are justified in going to war, but the unabomber's views were. It would have been highly immoral for him to just sit back and allow billions of people to be severely harmed by the industrial-technological system. Con, you've already conceded that the unabomber's views/motivations are accurate. Knowing this is accurate how can you expect him to sit back and just watch and do nothing as he sees everyone he has ever loved be severely harmed even enslaved to the industrial-technological system?The unabomber not only stepped up to protect his own family from this vicious cycle and course of events, but he also tried to save your family. A thank you letter to the unabomber in his prison cell is in order. "Osama bin laden hated Americas intervention in the west just as the Unabomber hated the industrialisation of the world Yet I don"t think you would defend Osama bin Laden actions on the 11the of September so how can you defend the Unabomber. Both men committed atrocities in the name of their political views trying to change public opinion using fear and terror. If you accept the Unabomber"s actions act just because he believed in the cause what he was fighting for then you must also say that Osama bin laden was just." This is a false analogy fallacy[1]. Bin Ladens actions in no way resemble Kazynski's. They had completely different motivations and their tactics were different also as well as their targets. Kaczynski actually touches on and heavily implies his motives in the unabomber manifesto[2]. He was planting the seeds of revolution against a heartless and oppressive regime ( industrial-technological system). It's interesting to note that the source con cited when writing of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 actually rail against government officials for mischaracterizing Bin Laden's motives as being against freedom. It would be reasonable to conclude the author of that piece would also be against characterizing Bin Laden's motives in a way meant to instill hate instead of actually taking the time to understand his motives. [1]Baronett, Stan (2008). Logic. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 321""325. ISBN 978-0-13-193312-5. [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... "The Unabomber chose not to campaign like any ordinary political movement but instead chose to kill and maim innocent people. If many people believed in what the Unabomber believed in then he could founded a political party with his manifesto as its core beliefs. An example of this being done in the past is the foundation of the green party which was founded to promote a greener world they share many of the Unabombers beliefs. Using democratic channels to obtain a position of power and make the changes he believed in. He made a conscious decision not to do this but instead he tried to force his ideas on the people through a terror campaign." The system can't be reformed. Every single day society becomes more industrialized and more technologically advanced. The obvious solution is to bring the system down. Creating a political party is a horrible way to do this. The democratic process has been severely undermined by the industrial-technological system and it's only getting worse. More on this momentarily. Examining Kazynski's right to revolution, Democratic process- Democratic means of this type of Revolution are ineffective. 90% of the media is controlled by just 6 corporations [1]. These corporations are a part of the industrial-technological system that Kaczynski was trying to save us from. These agents of the system have undermined the democratic process by controlling the information the general public gets access to. Effectively brain washing the public[2]. The democratic process would not be a valid way for Kaczynski to overthrow the industrial-technological society. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2] http://books.zcommunications.org... Enemy combatants, Kazynski didn't go around killing and injuring innocent people. The people Kazynski targeted had a direct hand in furthering the oppressive technoindustrial system. Some Enemy combatants killed or maimed by Unabomber. Notice all of them are tied to or were directly involved in furthering this system. 1. Percy Wood president of united Airline. 2.Diogenes Angelakos engineering. 3.Hugh Scrutton- owner of a computer store. 4. Gary Wright- computer store owner. Justification for the revolution, There is a natural/god given right to revolution. This right has even been codified into American law[1]. The very same language and reasons used by America's founders to revolt against England,can also be used to revolt against the industrial-technological system. Certainly a society whose government and people who were already freed by revolution could not condemn acts of revolution used for similar purposes. Declaration of Independence[2].( Obviously you'd have to change the wording a little for Kaczynski's purposes. In his case he is referring to the industrial-technological system as opposed to a government. Surprisingly you wouldn't have to change the language too much. ) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." [1] See Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War' (In Chapter 2, entitled "Revolutionary Constitutionalism," Professor Fritz notes that after the Revolution, "[i]ncreasingly, as Americans included it in their constitutions, the right of revolution came to be seen as a constitutional principle permitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise their constitutions without limit.")(Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 25 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3 [2] http://www.archives.gov... Summary, 1. Con concedes that Kaczynski's reasons are true. He just argues that Kaczynski should have used democratic channels to end the industrial-technological system. 2. I have shown that the democratic process has been undermined. 3.I've then went on to show that Kaczynski had a legal and moral duty to overthrow the system. The Unabomber was indeed justified.