Andre Lonardo
PHIL2300
Position Paper
The Necessity of Environmental Civil Disobedience
Civil Disobedience is a peaceful, political protest in which individuals refuse to comply
with laws and procedures to demonstrate their need for change. Civil disobedience has
pioneered change throughout history in all parts of the world. It helped Gandhi and the citizens
of India lead the Indian Independence Movement in 1920. It initiated the Civil Rights Act of
1964 which outlawed discrimination against race and religion. In 2008, Tim DeChristopher
peacefully protested the Bureau of Land Management auction which was attempting to illegally
sell 22,500 acres of beautiful red rock land in Southern Utah to be used for industrial purposes.
He made falsified bids that were worth over $1.8 million dollars which reserved him a spot in
prison for over two years. Tim felt he had a moral obligation to sacrifice his own well-being for
the good of the planet. In this essay I will be describing the importance of environmental civil
disobedience and why we have a moral obligation to break the law when it conflicts neglects
the biotic pyramid.
The Categorical Imperative states “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law. Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a mean,
but always at the same time as an end”.
By applying this to environmental civil disobedience we can see we are obligated to
disobey laws or maxims which cannot be universalized. Let’s apply this reasoning and logic to
Tim DeChristopher’s situation. He saw that the BLM’s auction and intention to destroy red rock
land could not be universalized. Destroying land and using it solely for oil and gas is an
Andre Lonardo
PHIL2300
Position Paper
unsustainable way to live and it cannot be maintained. The BLM auction also violates the
second sentence of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The intentions of the BLM were
not for “Humanity”, they were intended to make a profit off of the destruction of the land. The
BLM was attempting to treat the land, and the citizens of Utah as a means. They viewed citizens
as a means and saw the instrumental value in the land. They neglected to view the
consequences of their actions and what it would do to the citizens in the surrounding area.
Since the BLM was potentially going to destroy this land and put the citizens at risk, Tim had an
obligation to defend the citizens. He utilized civil disobedience and peacefully put a hold on the
auction. The counter argument to this would be John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian philosophy. The
auction could have potential given happiness to a greater number of people. The natural
resources could have provided the rest of the country with “happiness”.
In Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic”, he says “A this is right when it tends to preserve the
integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic pyramid. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”. Aldo
Leopold would have boldly defended Tim Dechritopher’s civil disobedience. According to the
Land Ethic, Tim’s actions were absolutely moral. They preserved the integrity and beauty of the
Biotic Pyramid although he was breaking the law. The biotic pyramid would have lost a huge
chain of energy. There is an abundance of wildlife in Southern Utah that would have been in
danger if Tim didn’t disobey the law.
Although it is completely contrary to what we are raised to believe, there are times
when you have a moral obligation to break the law. Protecting the integrity and well-being of
the biotic pyramid supersedes Constitutional law. In Martin Luther King’s letter from a
Andre Lonardo
PHIL2300
Position Paper
Birmingham Jail he said, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.
Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. This accurately summarizes
and justifies environmental civil disobedience.
The counter argument against Aldo Leopold would be Descartes’ Dualistic philosophy
which describes the Natural World and animals as objects, which are instruments to be
manipulated for the pleasure of humans. He would argue that the BLM has the best interest
because they are trying to support humans, rather than the natural world. Since the natural
world lacks a consciousness, they have instrumental value, not intrinsic value. He would argue
that Tim’s actions were immoral because they were not looking out for the interest of humans.
We are all involved in a biotic community as well as a legal, government community as
well. These two communities will often times have conflicting obligations which leave
individuals not knowing how to proceed. J Baird Callicott wrote his Second Order Principles in
order to help us prioritize our moral obligations when we have conflicting priorities of different
communities. SOP 1 states, “Any obligation generated by membership in more intimate
(personal) communities take precedence over those generated by more impersonal
communities. SOP2 states, “Stronger interests generate duties that take precedence over those
duties generated by weaker interests”.
To summarize, SOP1 says that we should prioritize groups that are more personal than
others, an example would be feeding your family before a complete stranger. SOP2 can trump
SOP1 when the interests of another group are of stronger need than others. An example would
be feeding a stranger over purchasing a luxurious new mansion. By applying Callicott’s SOP’s we
Andre Lonardo
PHIL2300
Position Paper
can see that Tim had a stronger moral obligation to defend the biotic pyramid. The stronger
interest was the well-being of the land in Southern Utah. Tim’s courageous act of civil
disobedience is morally justified by applying Callicott’s SOP’s.
The counter argument to this moral framework would say that we don’t have a moral
obligation to protect the natural world (Descartes). Again, since the natural world lacks free will
and a consciousness it does not need to be morally considered. The natural world fails to be
included in the moral circle because of this. If someone like Descartes were to apply Callicott’s
SOP’s he would apply a humanistic philosophy and say that humans generate the stronger
interest than the land, therefore humans should be morally considered over the land.
As members of the biotic community we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws.
Our country was born out of the idea that we should be able to defend ourselves from
tyrannical laws and government. Our current laws and regulations do not protect the natural
world which will eventually lead to the destruction of Earth. The structure in which our
government is set up leaves the interests of the biotic community left to die.
The U.S. has become less of a democracy because of the large corporations that are able
to have a stronger voice than every day citizens. Since our voice is no longer being heard or
respected, we have a moral obligation to utilize civil disobedience to defend the natural world.
Martin Luther King once said, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster
such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to
confront the issue”. Not only as American Citizens, but as residents of the Earth, we need to live
autonomously and be willing to sacrifice our own interests for the integrity of the biotic
Andre Lonardo
PHIL2300
Position Paper
community. We need to live by the Categorical Imperative while also applying SOP’s to
prioritize our moral obligations to the biotic community. Edward Abbey once said, “Sentiment
without action is the ruin of the soul”. If we all live by this code, we will be able to preserve the
beauty and integrity of the earth.