Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 10 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Analogy that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: Eco-sabotage. Hayduke is an Army veteran who lives in rural Oregon near an old-growth forest. That forest houses a thriving ecosystem of plants, fungi, birds, insects, and mammals that Hayduke has studied, admired, and loved since he was a child. It was this forest that prompted him to become an environmentalist, donating money to mainstream groups like Greenpeace, and also to more extreme environmentalist organizations, including Earth First!.
Hayduke learns that a logging company has secured the legal rights to clear-cut his beloved forest. He believes, with reason, that this will destroy the local ecosystem, which will have terrible effects for the region. Without the forest, many plants and animals, some of them relatively rare, will die. Erosion into a local river will likely become a problem, perhaps even causing flooding in an area that has never experienced flooding.
Because of his Army training and long-standing friendship with members of Earth First!,
Hayduke has a good grasp of the the kinds of eco-sabotage techniques that will effectively damage, or even destroy, the logging equipment the company has begun to assemble at the border of the forest. Some of these techniques are as simple as sugar in the gas tanks of the bulldozers. Some techniques are more complicated, but still within his ability. He knows, for example, how to mix thermite, which can destroy any machinery he chooses to target. Hayduke believes that he, acting alone, could cause enough damage to heavy logging equipment to convince the company to leave his beloved forest alone, and to move, instead, to a forest ecosystem that could withstand logging without collapsing.
Hayduke has never before destroyed property in pursuit of his environmentalist goals, but he believes this is a special case. If the government understood the importance of the forest, he believes they wouldn't have issued the logging permits, and he even believes that if the logging company knew the forest as well as he does, they would leave it alone. But at this point, Hayduke feels he has no other options: do nothing and allow the forest to be clear-cut, or prepare for a night mission to destroy as much heavy equipment as he can. Is it morally permissible (or morally wrong, or morally required) for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest?
(Adapted from The Monkey Wrench Gang, by Edward Abbey.)

Question

Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 10 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Analogy that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true).
The scenario: Eco-sabotage. Hayduke is an Army veteran who lives in rural Oregon near an old-growth forest. That forest houses a thriving ecosystem of plants, fungi, birds, insects, and mammals that Hayduke has studied, admired, and loved since he was a child. It was this forest that prompted him to become an environmentalist, donating money to mainstream groups like Greenpeace, and also to more extreme environmentalist organizations, including Earth First!.
Hayduke learns that a logging company has secured the legal rights to clear-cut his beloved forest. He believes, with reason, that this will destroy the local ecosystem, which will have terrible effects for the region. Without the forest, many plants and animals, some of them relatively rare, will die. Erosion into a local river will likely become a problem, perhaps even causing flooding in an area that has never experienced flooding.
Because of his Army training and long-standing friendship with members of Earth First!,
Hayduke has a good grasp of the the kinds of eco-sabotage techniques that will effectively damage, or even destroy, the logging equipment the company has begun to assemble at the border of the forest. Some of these techniques are as simple as sugar in the gas tanks of the bulldozers. Some techniques are more complicated, but still within his ability. He knows, for example, how to mix thermite, which can destroy any machinery he chooses to target. Hayduke believes that he, acting alone, could cause enough damage to heavy logging equipment to convince the company to leave his beloved forest alone, and to move, instead, to a forest ecosystem that could withstand logging without collapsing.
Hayduke has never before destroyed property in pursuit of his environmentalist goals, but he believes this is a special case. If the government understood the importance of the forest, he believes they wouldn't have issued the logging permits, and he even believes that if the logging company knew the forest as well as he does, they would leave it alone. But at this point, Hayduke feels he has no other options: do nothing and allow the forest to be clear-cut, or prepare for a night mission to destroy as much heavy equipment as he can. Is it morally permissible (or morally wrong, or morally required) for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest?
 (Adapted from The Monkey Wrench Gang, by Edward Abbey.)

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is P1: Destroying logging equipment to stop the destruction of the old-growth forest is morally permissible.

Supplementary information: This premise is stating that it is morally acceptable for Hayduke to take action to prevent the destruction of the forest, even if it involves damaging property. This is true because the potential harm caused by the destruction of the forest, such as the loss of rare plants and animals, and the risk of erosion and flooding, outweighs the harm caused by damaging the logging equipment.

P2: Preventing the destruction of the old-growth forest is morally required.

Supplementary information: This premise is asserting that it is morally necessary for Hayduke to take action to prevent the destruction of the forest. This is true because the destruction of the forest will have significant negative consequences for the ecosystem and the region, and it is Hayduke's moral obligation to protect the environment and the well-being of the plants and animals that depend on the forest.

P3: Destroying property in pursuit of environmentalist goals is morally permissible in certain circumstances.

Supplementary information: This premise is stating that there are situations in which it is morally acceptable to engage in property destruction for the purpose of protecting the environment. This is true because the value of preserving the ecosystem and preventing harm to the environment can outweigh the value of the property being destroyed.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally permissible for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest.

Supplementary information: This conclusion follows from the premises, as it is morally acceptable and even morally required for Hayduke to take action to prevent the destruction of the forest, even if it involves damaging property. In this specific case, the potential harm caused by the destruction of the forest justifies the action of destroying the logging equipment.

Below Is a Scenario That Raises a Moral Question