Max Howard
Bristol, England
To many, it seems that the prevalent form of Western democracy is simply ill-equipped to address certain issues. This is particularly apparent when considering the climate crisis: politicians are incentivised by rapid election cycles to prioritise the short-term, often at the expense of the long-term, in order to secure votes and maintain power. Since future, unborn generations are without political representation (and it is difficult to imagine this changing), and because of humans’ immediacy bias, it seems that our democracy is geared towards neglecting an issue which may soon pose an existential threat. It might be argued that this threat cannot be properly combatted through the standard channels of political participation - voting, peaceful protest, online activism, intentional consumption, etc.
Infamous UK environmental activist groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are yet to resort to political violence, but have frequently employed disruptive tactics such as stopping traffic. In an interview just over a year ago, a Just Stop Oil (JSO) representative tried to give grounds for this means of political change. Specifically, they were pressed to justify the potential consequences of such protests on emergency vehicles, or in the case of one particularly shocking piece of footage, someone driving their child to receive urgent medical attention. The representative gives an argument along these lines: the suffering and harm caused by climate change to the millions being displaced or experiencing famine are clearly far worse than the harm being caused by stopping traffic, even in these worst-case scenarios. Disruptive protest loses all potency if it starts to allow anyone through who claims that they are driving somewhere urgently. Therefore, if this protest must be disruptive in order to most effectively provoke policy change or shift the Overton window such that some harm is alleviated from these millions of people, it follows that this tactic is justified, at least from a consequentialist perspective. They might further argue that it is an irrational act of discrimination that the British media and British public direct their sympathy and their outrage towards those hypothetically harmed by stopped traffic, rather than towards those who are already suffering horrifically because of accelerated climate change. The psychological distance from these people might make it easier to distance ourselves from their suffering, but it does not mean that their suffering ought to have less moral relevance.
However, if we are to employ this utilitarian justification, it seems that it would have to extend to acts of violent protest, such as hostage-taking, or eco-terrorism. We could make the same argument again - the suffering caused by this method is negligible in comparison to the benefits provided to those suffering in other countries. This challenge was also raised in the interview, and the JSO member’s response was surprising: JSO refrained from violent methods because they were ineffective. JSO believed that such methods stoked hatred for the group and their cause to the extent that they ultimately were unlikely to influence policy, and therefore caused more suffering than they helped to avoid. This seems a reasonable answer - JSO are already very unpopular for their non-violent protests, and it is easy to imagine this dislike turning to hatred if the protests became violent.
What is most interesting about this response is the implication that if it appeared that violent protest was an effective means, JSO might condone such a practice. Whilst much of the literature does argue that non-violent means are more effective than violent means, combatting climate change is a cause largely unlike most that have preceded it. In any case, it is plausible to imagine an effective method of enacting change that might involve causing physical harm. Can we apply the same utilitarian reasoning? If we can’t, it seems irrational to apply it to cases of non-violent protest. However, denying the legitimacy even of peaceful civil disruption is far from a satisfactory conclusion - it renders environmental advocates powerless and ineffective.
It is difficult to imagine how the climate crisis might be resolved by orthodox political means, and it is clear that radical change is necessary to not only avoid vast losses of quality of life, but to ensure the prospects of humanity. If violent protest did prove the only way to enact this change (already a contentious claim as I have mentioned earlier), can we really oppose this violence whilst subscribing to the typical consequentialist ethic? This dilemma is avoided for the moment given the supposed shortcomings of violent tactics, but this is entirely contingent on the current societal stigma towards these - there is no reason this couldn’t change.
Comentarios