Part 1: (Thesis, Argument for Thesis, Obvious Objections)
My thesis is: If [A partakes in an action that equally or better benefits the environment other than engaging in environmental direct action or engaging in environmental direct action significantly reduces A’s lifetime well-being, or A has important conflicting financial or familiar obligations that prevents A from engaging in environmental direct action, or an atrocity does not take place as a result of A not participating in environmental direct action or violating property rights substantially reduces the wellbeing of others and does not lead to a very good outcome], then it is permissible to not violate property rights to engage in environmental direct action. If these conditions are not met, then it is morally wrong.
To further clarify, I will go over the terms atrocity, rationality, expectation and direct action. Firstly, an atrocity is a catastrophic event where …show more content…
They typically involve suffering or physical, emotion, social or cognitive injury. Nonetheless, the consequences will not be extended to not allowing a thing to flourish. Moreover, for A to be rational is for A to be informed and possesses reason and sound judgment. Expectation, too, must come from a rational mindset where A must have reasonable belief, likelihood and intent that x will occur. As discussed in class, direct action in this paper will be used to describe an illegal action that prevents or disincentives environmentally harmful behavior.
According to popular belief, it is permissible to value one’s lifetime wellbeing more than or equal to that of a stranger’s. This is largely in part because we have the right to consider our own interests as means of survival and protection of our wellbeing. For example, if you have been on the liver transplant wait list for years and they finally call to tell
My thesis is: If [A partakes in an action that equally or better benefits the environment other than engaging in environmental direct action or engaging in environmental direct action significantly reduces A’s lifetime well-being, or A has important conflicting financial or familiar obligations that prevents A from engaging in environmental direct action, or an atrocity does not take place as a result of A not participating in environmental direct action or violating property rights substantially reduces the wellbeing of others and does not lead to a very good outcome], then it is permissible to not violate property rights to engage in environmental direct action. If these conditions are not met, then it is morally wrong.
To further clarify, I will go over the terms atrocity, rationality, expectation and direct action. Firstly, an atrocity is a catastrophic event where …show more content…
They typically involve suffering or physical, emotion, social or cognitive injury. Nonetheless, the consequences will not be extended to not allowing a thing to flourish. Moreover, for A to be rational is for A to be informed and possesses reason and sound judgment. Expectation, too, must come from a rational mindset where A must have reasonable belief, likelihood and intent that x will occur. As discussed in class, direct action in this paper will be used to describe an illegal action that prevents or disincentives environmentally harmful behavior.
According to popular belief, it is permissible to value one’s lifetime wellbeing more than or equal to that of a stranger’s. This is largely in part because we have the right to consider our own interests as means of survival and protection of our wellbeing. For example, if you have been on the liver transplant wait list for years and they finally call to tell