From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC


In article <faGk02pc29ec01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
|> In article <30052@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) 
|> writes:
[ ... ]
|> 
|> But here you've added in some additional elements, injury and death to 
|> innocent beings. I can equally imagine a scenario in which:

Actually I haven't "added" anything.  These are always possibilites when
violence occurs.

|> 
|> 1. All animals, human or otherwise, are evacuated from the building prior to 
|> setting the fire.
|> 

Oh sure.  Excuse me, Mr. Butcher Shop Owner, could you please leave cuz we're
gonna burn you down?  Oh and don't call the police or anything.  Its ok cuz
we're just protesting your product, nothing personal.  Or do you march him
out at gunpoint?  Or do you make anonymous bomb threats?  How does the bomber
confirm that all people and animals are REALLY out of the building?  What about
animals that aren't pets like mice, bats, etc. that happen to live in the
basement or attic?

|> 2. The location is isolated so that secondary fires aren't a concern.
|> 

Not likely if they are going after a retail business such as a butcher or
furrier or a university lab.

|> 3. The fire department is notified of item 1, so they don't take any risks to 
|> try to save a life.

But they still have to BE there to put out the fire.  This costs taxpayer money
and may prevent them from making a timely and effective response to another
fire where someone may be injured or die.  In fact, if someone would happen
to die because the fire department was occupied fighting an arson fire set
by AR activists IMHO the activists would be morally, if not legally, guilty
of murder.  Besides how would the fire department KNOW that all people are
REALLY out of the building.  Why should they believe the activists?  Not to
mention the fact that the owner of the burned business will probably make
an insurance claim, which may cause his rates to go up and indirectly cause
the premiums of other policy holders to go up.

|> 
|> In this case, the violence is inflicted only on property. 

Oh so I guess there is no pain involved for someone watching his business
and possibly only form of livlihood go up in flames?

|>  
|> >In other words, violence is ethical if I agree with it, but unethical if
|> >I don't. This is from the person who brought us the 'cause the least pain'
|> >ethic.  Maybe you should be amend it to be, "pain for someone else is ethical
|> >if it's done in the name of a cause I believe in."  
|> 
|> No, actually my ideas on violence derive directly from the ethic you quoted. 

[ Hypothetical case about a drowning child deleted. ]

To answer your (later) question, I have been looking at this as an AR
discussion.  This is t.p.a after all.  My views on violent activism could
be expanded to include other topics such as abortion clinic bombings or the
LA riots, but thats for other newsgroups.  Lets stick to animal rights
issues here.  This thread did result from a post where we were asked to write
to felons convicted for crimes committed in the name of AR, in order to lift
their spirits.  In light of this, I don't see how you drowning child example
applies here.

|> 
|> Of course, even better still is scenario 3 in which you manage to prevent 
|> some pain without inflicting any. The thing I'm trying to get at is that 
|> blanket statements like "arson is NEVER OK" will always, I think, come back 
|> to bite you. That is, I think I can always construct an exception case. 

Please construct an exception case involving animal rights.

|> 
|> >Is it ethical for
|> >someone to cause you pain in the name of a cause they believe in?
|> 
|> Depends on the pain and the "rightness" of their cause. Of course the 
|> perpetrator and I might not agree on the "rightness" of their cause, so we'd 
|> be unlikely to agree on how ethical their infliction of pain was. 
|> 
|> > Or was it because you didn't want to address parts of it, such as:
|> > 
|> > From <29946@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>:
|> > 
|> > "What would you think if you lived next door to a butcher shop
|> > that was bombed by AR activists and your home was destroyed in the blaze?
|> 
|> I'd be very pissed off.

Why?  I'm assuming you believe the AR cause is "right".  Or would you be pissed
off only because the bombing was bungled enough that your home was involved?

|> 
|> > What if you or your wife or child (if you have them) was injured or killed?
|> 
|> I'd be even more pissed off. My personal reaction to these hypothetical 
|> scenarios, however, tells us little about the ethics involved. For example, 
|> if I decided to rob a bank and you stopped me, I'd probably be really pissed 
|> off at you then as well. In both cases I'm pissed off - does that mean the 
|> ethical concerns are the same?
|> 

What does bank robbing have to do with anything?  I'm trying to find out how
you would feel/react if you were accidentally victimized by violent activists
that are promoting a cause the you believe in.  Would you feel more, less,
or the same anger against the bombers if just a butcher shop was burned or the
butcher shop was burned and damage was caused to your home/family as well.

|> > Would you still be willing to waffle about the reasonableness of violent
|> > activity? 
|> 
|> Loaded question, Joe. Would I also stop beating my injured wife?

I didn't mean it to be.  I'm just trying to find out if you would feel any
different about violence in the name of "right" causes if you became a
victim of such violence even though you agree with the cause.

|> > What amazes me is that I can't even get the standard disclaimer about "not
|> > condoning violence and the majority of AR types being peace loving people
|> > and that a few bad apples are responsible for it all" out of you.
|> 
|> We may've gotten out of synch here. Apparently you've been viewing this as an 
|> AR discussion. I've been viewing it as a discussion of ethics in general. If 
|> we can agree on the general philosophy, then perhaps we can see how it'd 
|> apply to a specific AR case. 

See above.

|> 
|> Note also: just because I don't want to make a blanket statement condemning 
|> an action doesn't mean I support those actions. In truth, I'd ALMOST always 
|> say that it'd be better to avoid these actions than to engage in them.   
|> 

Well I hope so.  What would be a scenario, involving AR, where violent action
(especially arson and/or bombings) would be justified in your mind?

Joe
All opinions mine, etc.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=    "My basic view on tackle and equipment costs is that      =
=     fly fishers as a group spend too much and spin           =
=     fishers spend too little" - Stream Smallmouth Fishing    =
================================================================