Protest

I was looking at this site yesterday.  For those of you who don't want to follow the link this is a site organizing opposition to meat eating and animal experimentation.  I think they have toned it down a bit.  When I looked at it, they had a drawing of a Molotov cocktail at the bottom.  I shouldn't complain too much since removing this is a step in the right direction.  The blog came to my attention because P.Z. Meyers was writing to defend a Biology student from abuse she was receiving as a result of considering the blog's message and rejecting it.

The theme of the blog is summed up by its title, "Negotiation Is Over".  What this means is that the method that the this blog advocates for animal rights goes beyond civil debate and persuasion to encourage illegal action.  The blog seems to be taking moves away from violent action, if that is what the author intended by removing the diagram of a Molotov cocktail.

Thought about animal rights focuses on the ability of animals to experience pain and rationality.  Some would argue that a categorical prohibition against animal experimentation goes too far since it fails to consider that animals don't have the same capacity to make plans as humans.  With animals we would take a much more utilitarian approach.  We can sacrifice the good of an individual animal to promote the greater good, whereas that kind of treatment for humans would be inappropriate.

In any case exposure to this blog has been thought provoking.  What I wanted to consider is what methods of political action are appropriate.  Under what circumstances is civil disobedience, for example, justified?

The approach that I have taken on various issues is that we should examine whether the goals of action that can harm people can be better accomplished through less destructive methods.  It is necessary that governments will implement policies that many people will disagree with.  The government will collect taxes that some people object to and fail to provide services that other people thing are a government responsibility.  If every person were to use non-violent protest on every issue that they disagreed with, then the government couldn't function.

Of course, it will take more than just disagreement to get most people to protest.  They will have to feel strongly on this particular issue.  When people block traffic in order to protest a war, people who are inconvenienced by this might blame the protesters.  People who support the war won't support the protesters.  Even some who are somewhat sympathetic to the cause of the protesters might disapprove of the method of protest.

Rather than protesting a war by blocking traffic, it would be better to give reasons why the war shouldn't be fought.  So long as people are permitted to speak freely and vote, it would seem that we have a less destructive way of supporting most causes.

But not all causes.  Note that the condition requires that people be able to vote.  If there is some group who isn't allowed to vote, or a minority that is treated particularly badly, protest might be appropriate.  Children, animals and non-citizens can't vote, so they are justified in protesting against policies that adversely effect them. Similarly racial, ethnic and religious minorities are justified in protesting against policies that adversely effect them.

I should point out that even under circumstances where protest is not justified, the state ought to be restricted in suppressing it.  What I am getting at here is whether we should approve or disapprove as a matter of principle.  The state should have no restriction on political expression that deals with the content of speech, so long as the action is not advocating violence.

At present, the inability of animals to vote is not a result of government policy.  Non-human animals are simply incapable of most forms of politically meaningful expression.  The issue here is complex.  To what extent are humans justified in protesting on behalf of those who are naturally incapable of political expression?

Protesting on behalf of others is justified.  If resident aliens can justly protest against immigration policies that adversely effect them, on which they had no say through the electoral process, then citizens may justly join such protests to support them.

When it comes to experimentation, I support the biologists.  These people are not out to harm animals.  They tend to speak out to support biodiversity.  The ethical treatment of animals doesn't involve treating them as if they had the same rational capacity as humans.  They don't.  There are some forms of treatment of animals that cannot be supported.  By informing people about these, animal rights activists could change some minds.