This blog has mostly been about economics, so for a change let's have a crack at some philosophy. Political philosophy, at least.
Norman Lewis has drawn my attention to an FT article about wilful damage. Activists break into an arms factory, smash the place up, but are acquitted in court. The logic is that harm was done, but to prevent further harm, and in the eyes of the law that is acceptable.
So far so good. But what's interesting here is that guilt is established subjectively. The test is not whether your action has actually minimised the damage, but whether you believed that it would. It doesn't matter if you were right, just whether you honestly thought that you were.
Let's drag this back to energy and climate change. What are the implications? Could you break into my house and turn out my lights or smash my tumble dryer? Could you slash the tyres of my car? Or sneak in secretly at night and insulate my loft?
I think we have just invented the Altruistic Vigilante. The floodgates are open. Remember, you read it first here.
No comments:
Post a Comment