wibkemarianne: I wrote what I did because the who and the why matter tremendously. I can't give you an exact definition of my morality, but I know that it invol

wibkemarianne: I wrote what I did because the who and the why matter tremendously. I can't give you an exact definition of my morality, but I know that it involves a mix of both practicality and intention. Generally speaking, I don't find it moral to harm a person or group who is not intentionally causing harm to others. In many definitions of morality, there is a high bar to justifying harm. There is an even higher bar to justify violence. I will happily live with a range of people with a range of moralities, but I would not be comfortable living with people who easily justify violence on utilitarian grounds, even if they are claims about the extinction of a species. These claims have to be vetted. Appropriate responses have to be weighed and considered. Unfortunately, a lot of immoral action has been justified "for the good of the many". wibkemarianne, I'm not saying that I understand your views on morality, nor am I saying that you are necessarily a utilitarian. But what you've said implies some possible overlap. Here is how I would frame the problem. Climate change is a collective action problem involving individuals, governments, businesses, and many kinds of incentives and moralities. What are some practical, moral, feasible ways to address the problem? wibkemarianne, you wrote above "Any violence towards [some institution, system, person, class, group is accidentally causing the extinction of the species] that could be successful is morally obligatory." What is your basis for this? What is your definition of morality? The who and why matter because they give important information on how to make change. They also weigh in on morality. Many (most?) people try to make choices that advance their goals. Let's say that a set of groups is part of some arbitrary problem. Let's say that no one of them is fully responsible, but they all contribute to the problem. At what point, if any, is the problem serious enough to justify harming the groups somehow? How confident are you that you understand the problem well enough to justify the harm? Who decides? You have said that in some cases violence is morally obligatory? Whose morality? The above paragraph is only one way to view the problem. Another important perspective is to focus on "how we fix the problem" while working with the groups involved as partners. I'm not saying that men are angels. Neither are their organizations. But often fixing a problem is more important than assigning blame. Blame, by the way, is a computationally difficult, if not impossible, thing to estimate. Sometimes, the blame calculation (e.g. the process of determining who is at fault) is uncertain, computationally expensive, and biased. It is no surprise that many moralities have some notion of "forgive and move on". It often channels your energy in more productive ways. Lastly, even if there are cases where violence is warranted, one has to ask if it will have the desired effect. Practicality matters very much. I made my point because collective action problems, in my experience, are unlikely to be solved by violence. Collective action problems are often best solved by leadership or changing the rules of the game.