Corwin

I'd say that the major difference would be that drilling a hole in the bottom of a boat will sink it rather than make it blow up in your face unexpectedly. I'd agree that it's a similar motivation tho, and almost as 'wrong' an act. The intended injury to workers makes spiking worse in my opinion tho. (Drilling a hole in the bottom of a boat that's someone's livelihood is still bad, but spiking would be worse.)

JL

You kind of have to ask yourself for what reason are these people going to such lengths that innocent lives are being risked to preserve trees. If not for human enjoyment, then what? These people are as bad or worse than the industry they're battling.


All this empathy for trees and so little towards the innocent people they could potentially be maiming. I think it sounds like a bunch of flakes running around on Mommy and Daddy's dollar with too much time on their hands.

Pomp

Rational Ag,

The real point, or question, of this is:

Do you think people have the right to affect the welfare or lives of others in society by imposing their personal sense of morality on others when it contradicts the accepted morality of the society?

Yes, absolutely. On the other hand, I also think that the affected members of society have the right to fight back, so to speak, in the form of laws against such behavior, social disapproval, etc.

In the case of tree spikers, presumably they value trees, for whatever reason, more than they value the lives and property of other people, and more than they value the social approval of those of us who are not radical environmentalists. Another possibility is that they aren't so much concerned with the trees themselves as they are with the social approval of their radical comrades and the thrill of fighting for a cause. In either case, I hold that they are perfectly justified in spiking trees.

The majority of us, however, value human lives, the right to property, and the social approval of the mainstream more highly than we value trees or the social approval of fringe environmentalists. Therefore, I also maintain that we are perfectly justified in using coercive force to prevent tree spikers from operating.

Jerry Smith

Bastard,
It seems to me that what it comes down to for you is that we are all perfectly justified in following our own individual value systems. What do you mean by 'perfectly justified'?

It also seems that the violent struggle for ascendancy between groups with different value systems, at least where both value systems allow for violence or coercive behavior, is legitimized by this idea. Do Radical terrorists become a legitimate moral authority, if their efforts succeed?

For me, this is uncomfortably close to the idea that, at least in some cases, might makes right. Could a majority not jettison the value of minority rights altogether, and be 'perfectly justified' in discrimination, slavery, or genocide?

Your approach may be the only realistic model for deriving morality from preference (or arriving at a system of morality at all), but it can be unsatisfying none-the-less. Thoughts?

Rational Ag

In response to the "might makes right" idea, and the possible misconception of my appeal to the majority, I'd like to say that might makes right only if it respects the wishes and rights of others, and includes the golden rule.

Over dinner this evening I was discussing this topic and my girlfriend pointed out that my appeal to the majority isn't a good one when the majority makes a morality judgement that isn't based on the golden rule. I have the benefit of living in a country in which most of the laws and rules are based on the golden rule. Most everything that we live by we do because we would expect others to treat us the same.

As the laws in our country have developed over the past few hundred years, there has been a trend of social rights, social acceptance, and social equality, most of which is founded in the golden rule. We are slow to change, but I see the change in history and I see it continuing to change in the future until all of the unfounded bigotry and bias is gone and everyone treats everyone equally based on the "do unto others" principal.

I would assert that as our civilized society advances, our laws will become less based on individual morality stances and more on the basis of the golden rule. If you look at the less civilized societies in the world, you will see more of the laws based on social norms or history, rather than based on what's fair and what's just for the people living in that society.

When I was appealing to the majority earlier, I wasn't meaning that the majority is right in every instance, or that my particular personal morality was more correct than anyone else's. I was asserting that the respect for other people's property and life (golden rule) was paramount to any personal morality stances. Most of our laws are based on such principals. I think that the laws that aren't based on the golden rule will be done away as our society progresses (laws restricting homosexual unions, etc).

There might be people that don't agree with my philosophy, in which case I guess my reasoning fails. However, I think it would be hard to live in a civilized society that didn't respect the rights, wishes, and freedom of others with respect to the golden rule.

-Rational Ag

atheistdave

As it was reported in the Indianapolis paper some time ago after a rash of spiking, the trees have to be cut down after a spiking due to safety concerns. Which means that even trees that may not have been ready for harvest will now be cut prematurely. The spikers ended up causing more trees to be cut.

Also in analogy of the fishing boat, sinking the boats would kill more fish due to the pollution caused by the sinking of the boat. Oil and diesel fuel are not good on the fishies.

A research chemist once told me of a lab he used to work at that did animal based research and was located along a busy highway. It seams that late one night, the animal rights terroists broke in and freed the animals. Being free for the first time, most ran out in the road and got ran over.

Moral of the story here is, these people need to look further down the road and see what will actually happen, before they do more harm than good to their own cause or kill innocent people.

Dave

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: atheistdave ]</p>

JL

Jerry wrote;

Pardon me for butting in, but I think they do. That is if they're writing the history books as the saying goes.

In all cases might makes right. Power and domination need not be achieved through violence. Pacifism, the superficial antithesis to might, is a prime example. Look at Ghandi.

Pomp

Jerry Smith,

It seems to me that what it comes down to for you is that we are all perfectly justified in following our own individual value systems. What do you mean by 'perfectly justified'?

When I say that an action is justified, I mean that the agent performing it had sufficient rational reason to perform it. And, yes, I believe that we are all justified in following our own idiosyncratic value systems.

It also seems that the violent struggle for ascendancy between groups with different value systems, at least where both value systems allow for violence or coercive behavior, is legitimized by this idea.

Yes, to the extent that their value systems are advanced by violent struggle such struggle is legitimate. It should be noted that violent struggle is seldom the most efficient means by which to pursue one's values, unless one happens to value violent struggle for the sake of violent struggle.

Do Radical terrorists become a legitimate moral authority, if their efforts succeed?

No, because there are no moral authorities. How can their be if we each pursue our own values?

For me, this is uncomfortably close to the idea that, at least in some cases, might makes right. Could a majority not jettison the value of minority rights altogether, and be 'perfectly justified' in discrimination, slavery, or genocide?

The short answer is "Yes." The long answer is "Yes," followed by a long list of reasons that such actions generally have poor consequences.

Your approach may be the only realistic model for deriving morality from preference (or arriving at a system of morality at all), but it can be unsatisfying none-the-less. Thoughts?

This last paragraph more or less sums up why I adhere to the moral theory that I adhere to. It's not the prettiest theory in the world, but it's the only system I've ever encountered that stands up to rational criticism.

It does sometimes seem rather unsatisfying to have no legitmate way to tell a tyrant with the will and the power to enslave the world that he is "wrong," that he ought not do that, but I can honestly see no valid way to do so. Persons with the will and the power to do such things will do them.