Interesting Post Raising Interesting Ethical Questions
There was a post in the Charleston Gazzette Blog that I committed on but I don’t know if my comment will make it to the post and there are some interesting ethical questions raised by the post to me.
I am sitting in this tree to halt the blasting that endangers the residents of Pettry Bottom and Clays Branch. The people of Pettry Bottom, Clays Branch are living below a land slide waiting to happen and the only barrier between fallen trees, mud, boulders and water and the Pettry Bottom community is a wooden stake and tarp fence. The DEP needs to step in and protect its citizens – not Massey Energy – stop the blasting above Petty Bottom, and end mountaintop removal.
- Steepleton as quoted in the Charleston Gazzette Blog
I don’t know the details of the mining operations but I suspect that Massey has reasonable precautions to avoid a land slide. On the interesting note is the discussion as it brings up issues of legality and freedom of speech in a somewhat tangential nature. This got me thinking…
Obviously, these people were not on the coal companies property so they avoid trespassing crimes. I do wonder if they haven’t committed tortious/wrongful interference. Since it is obvious that they intend to prevent services to move forward as they are near the blasting radius to hamper the blasting of the mountain to start the mining operation. Probably, they aren’t breaking a law since I doubt the coal to be removed is contracted for; however, it is interesting and I’m not a lawyer so I don’t really know.
From a personal opinion perspective though, I think it is one thing to protest something in a non-violent manner. But when an individual begins to use their protests to restrain or hamper other individuals the bounds of non-violence are getting slim. Somebody may protest as I enter a store but if they tried to physically restrain me the equation of non-violence changes. It is obvious these “protest” actions are meant as a physical constraint on the coal company’s blasting plans.
Is violent protest ever a viable option? Apparently, to these individuals at least violent protest against corporate entities is at least somewhat ok if not in a semi-constrained sort of way. Sort of like stealing from the rich to get, punishing those that are successful or restraining a corporation are morally ok when one operates on a basis of moral relativism. I wonder how they’d like a taste of their own medicine if the coal operation decided that the end justified the means and went on an blasted the mountain. I doubt they’d like it very much but that’s moral relativism for you.
