The extinction rebellion is a global movement formed to advocate for governments' actions against climate change. The campaign also tries to fight biodiversity loss as well as ecological collapse (Joyce, 2020). According to the proponents Roger Hallam and Gail Brabrook, governments have the responsibility to protect species from extinction due to human activities (Booth, 2019). The extinction rebellion uses nonviolent civil disobedience to ensure that the authorities heed the call to protect nature. For instance, in the past, the group has occupied prominent sites such as the Marble Arch in London in what appears to be nonviolent protests (Rebellion, 2019). The protests have been successful in highlighting the environmental risks caused by global warming. According to the, movement, the occurrence of climate change as a result of human activities is a direct result of the weakness of the political community to establish policies that protect the planet and organisms from extinction. This approach has been termed radical primarily due to the advocacy for disobedience of the law in a bid to win the war against sixth mass extinction. Breaking of law is one of the tools to make sure that authorities are kept in check.
There are various philosophers whose works significantly agree with the group's approach to breaking the law like Hobbes and Dr. Luther King. Through the social contract theory, Hobbes explained that the people, in an effort to maintain order in the society, relegate some of their rights to certain people in the form of a political community to protect their remaining freedoms. Hobbes was of the idea that free people freely create a civil society through a social contract (Sreedhar, 2017). This fact may mean that groups of people may surrender some of their freedoms to one political community to protect them against the advances of other interest groups within the society. In doing so, one political organization may lead an assault in social terms by refusing to submit to the other group's tyrannical rule.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, according to the social contract theory, political order and law are creations of human beings and thus not in any way natural. This statement suggests that human beings can create rules that suit the moment's needs since laws are a means to an end. According to Hobbes, the government is a nonparty to the original contract, which indicates that citizens can disobey the government if it is too weak to act effectively. Therefore, the citizens can withdraw the obligation to obey the government when it becomes necessary. Despite the ideas of some of the social contract theorists such as Locke that violence may be used when necessary, Hobbes only advocated for disobedience through means such as election and withdrawal of obedience (Sreedhar, 2017). This suggestion portrays that Hobbes would have supported the movement's actions and approaches, such as breaking the law.
Further, the ethical egoism theory by Hobbes indicates that actions which profit the perpetrator are moral. This statement suggests that the permissibility of activities is based on the results that will be gain. In the case of extinction of organisms and climate change, if breaking the law will benefit the breakers of law by getting justice or the attention of the people with authority, then it is permissible. The theory elevates self-interests and points out all actions are, in most cases, aimed at ensuring that self-interests are met (Costa, 2018). However, Hobbes opined that in the quest to benefit, moral agents should not cause harm to others. This assertion is the equivalent of saying that violence is not ethical and should not be used by moral agents.
Significantly, King defended civil disobedience to find justice and stand for what one believes. Dr. King said that even though defying law would cause anarchy, one who disobeys an unjust law should do it openly. This statement suggests that breaking an unjust law should be acceptable, and though it is bound to attract a penalty, it must be done with passion (Sreedhar, 2017). However, King advocated for nonviolence even when breaking the law through his description of six principles of nonviolence. For instance, King believed that a nonviolent resister hopes that justice will prevail. This principle alludes that resistance must be coupled with nonviolence for justice to be served.
King also claimed that by breaking the law, the one resisting only express dissatisfaction to what is evil and not necessarily the perpetrator or the actions. In this sense, breaking the law is merely an effort to seek justice objectively without targeting a person to whom the acts are linked (Livingston, 2020). This argument points out that there can be the separation of actions and the owners of the actions which justify radical means of fighting evil acts without harming the perpetrator. Therefore, King seemed to advocate for the use of civil disobedience to defeat what people view as evil. One of the six steps of nonviolent social change, according to King, is direct action. The step includes all actions that cause creative tension and pressure. The creation of tension is meant to ensure that a person or group that has refused to enter negotiation for justice is forced to succumb to pressure (Livingston, 2020). In essence, this suggestion could point to the use of mass action to appeal to authorities. It is important to note that the use of creative pressure could involve civil disobedience, which compels the government to act justly.
The ideas of both Hobbes and Martin King are acceptable since they indicate that there is a need for society to avoid anarchy by all means provided the means do not cause violence. In essence, anarchy occurs when individuals in society fail to respect existing laws. However, it is notable from these philosophers that the members of the community should not allow unjust laws to prevail as they are oppressive and breaking them is justifiable. Hobbes, in particular, highlights that the laws and the systems of governance are not natural and hence, must submit to the initial will of the people, which is to ensure that there is order in the society. Further, it is clear that all parties involved in establishing the social contract must honor their end of the agreement (Livingston, 2020). For instance, the government or the political community must fulfill the responsibility of the protection of freedoms.
On the other hand, the people must fulfill their end of the agreement by surrendering the freedom to act on individual interests that may harm the general good of all. However, if the political community refuses to honor their end, it becomes right for the people not to honor their end (Livingston, 2020). The ideas of the two are correct since some laws are oppressive, while those in governance may intend to use laws to benefit themselves while harming those that put them in power.
In conclusion, the extinction rebellion actions are in line with the thoughts of philosophers such as Hobbes and King. The movement aims at fighting for the protection of nature and existing species of plants and animals from adversities caused by human activities. The thoughts on civil disobedience, which takes nonviolent form, are agreeable as they ensure that a moral agenda is propelled without harming others. Despite there being quotas that are against civil disobedience, it is important to note that it is justifiable and effective. In most cases, the use of protests is useful in applying pressure to governments.
References
Booth, E. (2019). Extinction Rebellion: social work, climate change and solidarity. Critical and Radical Social Work , 7 (2), 257-261.
Da Costa, M. N. (2018). Revisiting Hobbes: on freedom, political authority and civil disobedience. Aufklärung: revista de filosofia , 5 (2), 59-74.
Joyce, C. (2020). Extinction rebellion, vulnerability and sacred civil disobedience. Zadok Perspectives , (146), 25.
Livingston, A. (2020). Power for the Powerless: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Late Theory of Civil Disobedience. The Journal of Politics , 82 (2), 700-713.
Rebellion, E. (2019). This is not a drill: an Extinction Rebellion handbook . Penguin UK.
Sreedhar, S. (2017). Rethinking Hobbes and Locke on Toleration. In Politics, Religion and Political Theology (pp. 39-56). Springer, Dordrecht.
