Action vs. Thought

“The group’s admiration of monkeywrenching seems to be a legal euphemism intended to encourage others to commit acts of sabotage while evading legal responsibility. Even if this tactic is successful, it is hard to imagine how the group can avoid moral responsibility for acts, which are both criminal and morally reprehensible by normal moral or ethical standards” (336 Hargrove).

While Hargrove is a bit harsh in his response he does make a good point. Environmental policy has not been very effective or had a lot of progress but does this justify an organization encouraging dangerous and violence acts? Foreman and Abbey lack accountability. They encourage violent acts and sometimes even illegal ones, and then are able to avoid taking responsibility by using technicalities. To me, this is not ethical, if they are proud of being a radical group then they should take ownership in what they believe and what the promote. Also it is hard to tell if they will make any progress using these methods, because the population does not respond well to radical views.

This is a very hard issue to solve, because we need progress to happen in environmental policies and practices and our current methods are not working. But are these radical methods any better? I want progress but is it worth putting others at risk? Do you think action or a change in thinking is the best way to gain progress?