On the Morality of Non-Legal Political Tactics
Morality arises from virtue. It makes the determination of good or bad weighed before proper conduct, logic and experience. Yet what is logical and proper? Can we equate moral with legal? If not, how do we create an intersection of the two such that obedience to the law is also a moral act?
The overlap between morality and law may be an ideal. A code of conduct becomes the framework of morality which is rooted in cultural norm and tradition, religion, ideology, philosophy and individual conscience. Laws as embodiment of political beliefs and values are ideally made when morals become a major basis. Yet, in the same way that no one is perfect, society is also an imperfect system and most of the time morals and laws do not meet in the same direction.
The policy-makers are mostly humans with vested interests neglecting majority needs and demands. The shaping of laws ergo is a difficult task for the citizens in order to create a law-abiding and morally-upright population. If not, moralists who pursue their perceived moral code of conduct might afford to disobey societal rules to satisfy morality or the law-abiders might dissatisfy the latter. However, the sources of morality at some point would contend each other vis a vis proper judgment. When this happens, every issue must represent a relative field of concern and must base the measure of morality on which aspect is dominant.
In this paper I would like to present how activities of activists and political interest groups have transgressed legalities however may find justification on moral grounds. The example chosen are the environmentalists’ illegal pursuits against companies that degrade the ecology. In a political sense; sabotage, rallies, arson and eco-terrorism which are done for the achievement of their political interests are considered political tactics.
These are the measures adopted by organizations to create an impression of sustained efforts and operations to make the government act according to their wishes. These political tactics are made outside of state means and are labeled anti-government. Using the framework of the existence of social movements, these strategies are expressed only when sympathizers lost trust in their lobbying capacities and find better attention in the non-state parameters.
Yet advocates are confident on the righteousness of their position and actions. Here is an illustration of where the conviction is coming from. Let us concentrate on Eco-terrorism. This simply has been defined as terrorism that is conducted for the sake of environmental causes. Violence is employed but is directed against property of the target offenders. The damage that eco-terrorism has caused amounted to $42.8 million for decades which in 2003 increased to 200 million dollars in property damage.
Environmentalists have argued that the government have misinterpreted the acts of the so-called eco-terrorists and must refer to the acts of persons, companies and governments that are involved in ecologically irresponsible activities like deforestation, construction of infrastructures in agricultural suburbs, destroying habitat of animals and various life-forms.[1] This has served the justifying principle for eco-terrorism; the sustainability of environment is more important than profit of companies and no amount of consumerism could be utilized as reason for the business expansions and material development.
The relative avoidance of killings and deaths resulting from activism is attributed to the value that any culture, religion and ideology places over life and the right to life. The environmentalists have been serious about relating environmental degradation to an indirect act of taking away the lives of people due to anticipated outcomes of mishandling of the ecology and imbalance in the ecosystem. Nature has its way of getting back at modernization and industrialization; global warming, flash floods, extinction, etc. Philosophically speaking, the morality of eco-terrorism also begs ethical consideration.
Rights are given importance where morality is present. Human rights have included the right to life, a healthy habitat, and a safe and clean society. In a political sense, “power” is an element that is not confined to the government and may be given to civil society and interest groups. Authority hence may be questioned and rendered illegitimate where the general public sees selfish interests dominate the society’s politics. The other sources of proper conduct such as norm or tradition, religion and individual conscience may be subjective yet there are some arguments that favor the activists; again following the cost-benefit analysis of eco-terrorism. The costs may be high now, but it is highest where the environmental destruction is not hindered.
Following Aristotle’s idea of the dependence of morality on law as it appeared on the Nicomachean Ethics- law is essential should we want to nurture our moral virtues. This is so because the law can yield to the enhancement of the intellectual virtues and improve our lives in general. However the context with which Aristotle speaks of consists of a society where citizens have relegated authority to political leaders who are most capable and just. Justice is achieved where the benefits of the majority is promoted.
It is an unlucky occasion for the present time to be marred with inequalities implicating morality to a downfall. In which case, morality can not base itself on laws as the latter have contained contradictions to the former. Put it in another way, laws have given intrinsic worth to values other than those that are held by philosophy, ideology, norm or religion; instead to individualistic benefits. What transpires in laws are political culture, market-oriented beliefs and modernized attitudes and behavior; none of which is ready to face the non-profit, organized and strong sentiments of environmental activists.
[1] Cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
