I recently listened to the discussion on Dogma Debate #223 starting at 1:05:00 regarding the
blocking of the airport by Black Lives Matter activists. I think there
was some miscommunication, and some lack of understanding.
From what I could tell, David was claiming that harm was
done by the blockage of the airport. I
think this is objectively true, and not contested effectively. It was trivialized through unreasonable
claims for evidence.
Eli kept talking about a line
that you just can’t draw, because everyone would keep moving the line toward
the more conservative position until the civil disobedience would become
completely ineffective.
Alix seemed to generally be on
the side of no line, and was advocating for the moral acceptability of the
civil disobedience
Issues:
The demands for evidence of actual harm are bad logic – the behavior can be called immoral based solely on the risk of harm. Introducing undue risk of harm is immoral.
David concedes, “Be disruptive.” The problem, is that being disruptive always causes harm. That’s the definition. It doesn’t always cause great harm, but it always causes at least inconvenience, and it almost always risks great harm. The civil disobedience on “the bus” risked great harm, just like the airport. The risk was far lower, but it was still there.
What wasn’t conceded, but what should be conceded, is that the lack of disobedience also causes harm. We do have a problem, and letting it continue causes harm. This seems to have not been discussed, but is extremely morally relevant.
The line that Eli was saying cannot be drawn, has to be drawn. Because a disadvantaged group killing all members of the advantaged group is clearly unacceptable. That kind of protest, is not ok. So there is a line. The line should be drawn by weighing the risk of harm of the protest against the risk of harm of not protesting. As social resistance to the movement increases, the risk of harm of not protesting increases. So you keep seeing the line move towards the risk to the social majority side of the equation – because that is the only way the situation gets resolved.
The math that isn’t available to me, but I suspect the protest would come out morally defensible.
