Animal Rescue as Civil Disobedience

Apparently illegal cases of animal rescue can be either open or covert: ‘open rescue’ is associated with organizations such as Animal Liberation Victoria and Animal Liberation New South Wales; ‘covert rescue’ is associated with the Animal Liberation Front. While the former seems to qualify non-controversially as civil disobedience I argue that (irrespective of other considerations such as effectiveness or advisability) at least some instances of the latter could also qualify as civil disobedience just so long as various norms of civility (e.g. norms concerning recognition of others, the avoidance of violence and threats) are satisfied. The case for such a move is defended against objections that covertness is (1) inherently suspect; (2) a failure to accept responsibility; and (3) inconsistent with civil disobedience as a form of communication. Against such objections, the paper emphasizes the importance of respecting the open texture of the concept of civil disobedience if it is to be of continuing relevance against the backdrop of changing forms of non-violent dissent.     

Judicial Responses to Civil Disobedience: A Comparative Approach

In this paper, I compare the extent of Anglo-American judicial engagement in response to civil disobedience with that of the French judiciary. I begin by examining what the civil disobedient can realistically expect to achieve in a court of law. I shall argue that his priority should be to require the judge, acting as a mouthpiece for the law, to respond to his complaints. To do this, the civil disobedient must be able to deny liability for the offence he has allegedly committed by urging a different interpretation of the law on the basis of an alternative -- but plausible -- reading of constitutional or human rights. If the civil disobedient can do this, he can claim a victory of sorts, even if his claims are ultimately unsuccessful. But legal culture can present a further barrier. Judges have different roles in different jurisdictions and therein lie further difficulties for the French civil disobedient.     

Samaritanism and Civil Disobedience

In this paper, I defend the existence of a moral duty to disobey the law and engage in civil disobedience on the basis of one of the grounds of political obligation—the Samaritan duty. Christopher H. Wellman has recently offered a ‘Samaritan account’ of state legitimacy and political obligation, according to which the state is justified in coercing each citizen in order to rescue all from the perilous circumstances of the state of nature; and each of us is bound to obey the law, as the state demands, because we each have a responsibility to help rescue others when this assistance is not unreasonably costly. Though Wellman recognizes that there can be reasons for disobeying the law and resisting injustice in otherwise legitimate states, he overlooks the possibility that at least some of these reasons could be Samaritan in nature, grounded in the duty to rescue people from peril. As I shall argue, the Samaritan duty supports obligations to disobey the law, when the law prohibits Samaritan rescues, and to engage in civil disobedience, when unjust laws and practices contribute to endangering people. The discussion proceeds as follows. After a brief overview of the Samaritan duty, I articulate my case for Samaritan duties to disobey the law, and duties to engage in civil disobedience when unjust laws, institutions, or practices enable what I call ‘persistent Samaritan perils’. I then examine and respond to several objections to my account: first, that the costs of law-breaking are unreasonable, and thus cannot be morally required; second, that individuals’ particular acts of protest and civil disobedience do not appear to make any difference to the rescue, and thus cannot be required; third, that I stretch the Samaritan duty beyond recognition; and fourth, that the Samaritan duty binds us to help people in need or peril anywhere, not particularly at home. I consider in conclusion the advantages and limits of my account of citizens’ Samaritan duties in the face of injustice.     

On a Belief-Relative Moral Right to Civil Disobedience

Res Publica - Acts of civil disobedience are undertaken in defense of a variety of causes ranging from banning GMO crops and prohibiting abortion to fighting inequality and saving the environment....     

Techniques of Neutralization and Animal Rights Activists

Neutralization theory posits that criminals assuage feelings of guilt they feel as a consequence of their actions by developing thoughts that justify their deviant behavior. The process is believed to occur prior to the act, and is seen as enabling the deviant behavior. A large body of research has been conducted demonstrating that neutralization “techniques” are used by many criminals. The present work seeks to determine if members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use techniques of neutralization. The method used was a content analysis of anonymous communiqués written by the ALF. The results indicate that ALF members do indeed use various techniques of neutralization to justify their actions, including what may be a newly identified technique, “appeal to a higher moral principle.” Moreover, as the ALF is motivated by a particular ideology, it seems reasonable to conclude that these techniques were developed in the minds of the communiqué authors prior to the criminal actions they perpetrated.     

Responses to Injustice in Popular Chinese Sayings and among Hong Kong Chinese Students

Abstract

Three studies were conducted in an investigation of how people in Chinese societies react to injustice. In Study 1, 293 Chinese sayings concerning injustice coping were subject to content analysis. In Study 2, 10 male and 10 female Hong Kong Chinese high school students indicated whether they had heard of the sayings in Study 1 and whether they agreed with them. In Study 3, 342 Hong Kong Chinese college students reported how they felt and what they did to reduce the injustice feeling they recently came across concerning an injustice. In Study 1, responses to injustices suggested by the Chinese sayings were dominated by cognitive reappraisal and alignment with external, metaphysical forces to maintain the perception of a just world; confrontation was generally discouraged. In Study 2 and Study 3, even among the highly Westernized Hong Kong Chinese students, the pattern of justice coping revealed in the popular sayings still prevailed.     

Democracy,Deliberation and Disobedience

This paper develops a theory of civil disobedience informed by a deliberative conception of democracy. In particular, it explores the justification of illegal, public and political acts of protest in constitutional deliberative democracies. Civil disobedience becomes justifiable when processes of public deliberation fail to respect the principles of a deliberative democracy in the following three ways: when deliberation is insufficiently inclusive; when it is manipulated by powerful participants; and when it is insufficiently informed. As a contribution to ongoing processes of public deliberation, civil disobedience should be carried out in a way that respects the principles of deliberative democracy, which entails a commitment to persuasive, non-violent forms of protest.Civil disobedience is understood in this paper as public, illegal and political protest carried out against state laws or policies. Justification here is understood as a moral or political justification -- where civilly disobedient citizens claim that they are morally or politically entitled to disobey law. It does not imply legal justification.John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972); Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (London: Harvard University Press, 1985).     

Zoo Visitors' Affective Responses to Observing Animal Behaviors

ABSTRACT

The opportunity to observe or interact with animals in a zoo is often vital in influencing visitors' positive feelings towards animals and ultimately their conservation behavior. This study explores the relationship between observed animal behavior and zoo visitors' responses. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 717 visitors across four exhibits (giraffe, lion, cheetah, and red panda) at three zoos (Brookfield Zoo, San Diego Zoo Safari Park, and Central Park Zoo). The questionnaire measured observed animal behaviors and visitors' predispositions, affective responses, and meaning-making at animal exhibits. Multivariate path analyses indicated that up-close encounters with zoo animals, along with observable active animal behaviors, predicted visitors' reported positive affective responses which, in turn, predicted their meaning-making. These findings lend support to the role of positive affect as a mediator between observable animal behaviors and visitor meaning-making. Implications are discussed in relation to achieving both conservation education and animal welfare outcomes.     

Intelligibility,Moral Loss and Injustice

In Liberalism's Religion, I analyse the specific conception of religion that liberalism relies upon. I argue that the concept of religion should be disaggregated into its normatively salient features. When deciding whether to avert undue impingements on religious observances, or to avoid any untoward support of such observances, liberal states should not deal with ‘religion’ as such but, rather, with relevant dimensions of religious phenomena. States should avoid religious entanglement when ‘religion’ is epistemically inaccessible, socially divisive and/or comprehensive in scope. In turn, states should show special deference to religious observances insofar as they exhibit what I call integrity – whether personal or collective. The upshot of this interpretive strategy is that liberal law need not recognise religion as such. As a result, there are gaps between the liberal construal of disaggregated religion and the lived experience of religion as a uniquely integrated experience. Are these gaps morally regrettable? Are they unjust?