File:Journal of Controversial Ideas Volume 01 Issue 01 (April 2021) 07 In Defense of Direct Action.pdf
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Size of this JPG preview of this PDF file: 424 × 600 pixels. Other resolutions: 170 × 240 pixels | 339 × 480 pixels | 543 × 768 pixels | 1,239 × 1,752 pixels.
Original file (1,239 × 1,752 pixels, file size: 197 KB, MIME type: application/pdf, 24 pages)
File information
Structured data
Captions
Summary[edit]
DescriptionJournal of Controversial Ideas Volume 01 Issue 01 (April 2021) 07 In Defense of Direct Action.pdf |
English: There is widespread agreement that coercive force may be used to prevent people from seriously and wrongfully harming others. But what about when those others are non-human animals? Some militant animal rights activists endorse the use of violent coercion against those who would otherwise harm animals. In the philosophical literature on animal ethics, however, theirs is a stance that enjoys little direct support. I contend that such coercion is nevertheless prima facie morally permissible. I defend this contention by arguing (a) that from the point of view of common sense morality, it is prima facie permissible to use coercive force to prevent puppies from being wrongfully mutilated and (b) that this point clearly extends to other kinds of animals and to other kinds of seriously harmful practices. I then show that there is, as a result of (b), presumptive moral justification for some of the highly controversial instances of direct action undertaken by the Animal Liberation Front and similar groups of militant animal rights activists. I close by arguing that pragmatic considerations override most proposals to undertake direct action, even when the proposed actions are prima facie morally permissible. Indeed, I conclude that although the use of violent coercion to prevent harm to animals may occasionally be ultima facie permissible, its use is in tension with (and tends to undermine) the broader agenda of the animal rights movement. |
Date | |
Source | https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/137 |
Author | Ivar Hardman |
Licensing[edit]
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
current | 05:05, 1 September 2021 | 1,239 × 1,752, 24 pages (197 KB) | Koavf (talk | contribs) | Uploaded a work by Ivar Hardman from https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/137 with UploadWizard |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
The following 2 pages use this file:
Metadata
This file contains additional information such as Exif metadata which may have been added by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong.
Software used | LaTeX with hyperref |
---|---|
Conversion program | xdvipdfmx (20200315) |
Encrypted | no |
Page size | 595.28 x 841.89 pts (A4) |
Version of PDF format | 1.5 |