WEBVTT
00:00:00.479 --> 00:00:08.960
Allow me to give you a slightly unlikely thought experiment that contains the seeds of quite a provocative argument against some activism.
00:00:09.279 --> 00:00:11.519
This guy's out for a walk, call in Michael.
00:00:11.679 --> 00:00:16.879
When in the distance he sees a hundred people tied down to a railway line.
00:00:17.039 --> 00:00:22.000
And on a separate track, he also spots a further one person tied down.
00:00:22.399 --> 00:00:26.399
He sees two runaway trains coming, one on either track.
00:00:26.559 --> 00:00:30.160
And so within a minute, all 101 people will be dead.
00:00:30.399 --> 00:00:42.000
Unless Michael can do something, and he realizes that all he can do is to put his own outstretched arm onto one of the tracks to slow down the train so that the train stops before hitting the people.
00:00:42.159 --> 00:00:46.240
But there's a big gap between the tracks, so he can't stop both trains.
00:00:46.479 --> 00:00:50.320
He can either save the one person or the a hundred.
00:00:50.719 --> 00:00:58.560
And let's suppose that he's not under a moral obligation to save anyone, given how costly and awful it would be for him to lose his arm.
00:00:58.719 --> 00:01:03.039
Michael considers his options, and then he chooses to sacrifice his arm after all.
00:01:03.359 --> 00:01:09.680
But to save the one person, letting the a hundred die.
00:01:10.079 --> 00:01:13.120
There's something morally off about this, right?
00:01:13.599 --> 00:01:18.319
This is basically a thought experiment given by the philosopher Theoran Pummer.
00:01:18.480 --> 00:01:37.920
Now we can extend this kind of thought to activism, and say that activists who are well meaning but unstrategic, and who have little hope of doing serious good, might be somewhat similar, morally speaking, to Michael, the bad rescuer, who saves one when he could have saved a hundred.
00:01:38.400 --> 00:01:45.280
Because some activists do some good, but they could be doing a whole lot more good, or they could have a good shot at doing that.
00:01:45.519 --> 00:01:50.799
And so are they on the line, morally speaking, in a similar way to Michael?
00:01:51.120 --> 00:02:03.200
In this episode we ask, do people who go out of their way to fight for a good cause in fact do wrong when they campaign in ways that are unpromising and unstrategic?
00:02:03.519 --> 00:02:07.680
Are many activists in the real world indeed doing a bad job?
00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:12.159
Which should we prioritize conviction or strategy?
00:02:12.479 --> 00:02:17.120
And what are some principles for a morally sound and promising activism.
00:02:36.639 --> 00:02:44.960
This is the podcast that always promises you a surprising and stimulating idea about ethics or politics in every single episode.
00:02:45.199 --> 00:02:54.000
Thanks to the Centre for Research in Ethics, an academic centre based in Montreal, for their continued support of this podcast, and thanks to you, the listener.
00:02:54.159 --> 00:03:02.560
It's so good to be able to see that I am not doing this alone, and a sense that you care about philosophy and how it can improve and enrich our world.
00:03:02.800 --> 00:03:09.280
So today our topic is activism, and I have a really interesting interview near the end with an activist and theorist of change.
00:03:09.520 --> 00:03:16.960
But as always, we begin with the status quo, the dominant majority view on our topic before looking at a surprising alternative.
00:03:17.120 --> 00:03:29.599
So the status quo seems to be that activists are sometimes laudable, but sometimes either useless or irritating or exasperating, especially if they disrupt normal life or are hypocritical.
00:03:29.759 --> 00:03:41.759
But according to the status quo, even if we're right to criticize some activists in these respects, activists who fight for a good cause don't do anything wrong against those who they fight to protect.
00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:52.479
So to illustrate the status quo, uh let's turn to the comment section on some YouTube videos depicting activists from Just Stop Oil, a UK-based environmental group.
00:03:52.639 --> 00:04:03.360
So the first set of comments respond to a video where a protester jumps onto a snooker table during a live broadcast and throws some orange powder all over the snooker table.
00:04:04.240 --> 00:04:06.400
Oh, give me a break.
00:04:07.199 --> 00:04:10.800
The narcissism of these people is limitless.
00:04:11.360 --> 00:04:15.520
He should be made to pay all the spectators whose night he's ruined.
00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:16.720
He did it.
00:04:16.959 --> 00:04:18.480
He stopped oil.
00:04:19.040 --> 00:04:23.279
The dye that makes that powder orange was made from oil.
00:04:24.079 --> 00:04:33.360
Okay, and the next set of comments are on a video showing a bus driver ramming into protesters who are trying to stop the bus.
00:04:34.160 --> 00:04:36.240
Buy that driver a beer.
00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:39.759
Winner of the best driver of year award.
00:04:40.319 --> 00:04:43.839
The arrogance of these protesters is unbelievable.
00:04:44.959 --> 00:04:48.720
So these comments give us some evidence about what a lot of people think.
00:04:48.959 --> 00:04:58.240
Oftentimes people are irritated by what they see as the disruption caused by activism, and they're keen to make out issues of hypocrisy wherever they can.
00:04:58.480 --> 00:05:07.839
But there's no suggestion here that it's those who depend on the environment who are wronged by these environmental activists.
00:05:08.079 --> 00:05:12.560
That's not part of the kind of common critique of activism.
00:05:13.360 --> 00:05:22.000
But the surprising alternative kind of drops this stuff about hypocrisy and so on and focuses instead on a different sort of critique.
00:05:22.240 --> 00:05:38.240
So the alternative view says, look, activists often act in a way that's morally compromised because of their effects or lack of effect on those they fight to defend, on those they're standing up for, and whose cause they're taking on.
00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:56.240
So perhaps surprisingly, it's the very individuals that these activists fight for who have the moral complaint against the activists, even though they're putting in even though they're often voluntarily putting in time and money into trying to defend their interests.
00:05:56.800 --> 00:06:11.360
So applied to the just stop oil case, the idea is that the just stop oil people might be getting out of bed in the morning precisely to fight for people whose lives or welfare depends on a stable climate.
00:06:11.519 --> 00:06:19.199
But it's those people who are most vulnerable to climate change who actually have the strongest complaint against those activists.
00:06:19.360 --> 00:06:23.120
If and because they could be doing a much better job.
00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:25.839
So the episode has three parts really.
00:06:26.079 --> 00:06:30.079
Firstly, we ask, is being a bad activist morally criticizable?
00:06:30.240 --> 00:06:34.000
And is it like being a bad rescuer, Michael, in the train case?
00:06:34.240 --> 00:06:39.839
Secondly, we'll get into a case study of bad activism on a topic to be revealed.
00:06:40.079 --> 00:06:45.519
And thirdly, I have a chat with the strategy activist and writer Tobias Leanot.
00:06:46.160 --> 00:06:55.680
So the starting point for this surprising alternative view, which I concede as quite provocative, but if you're an activist, do bear with me.
00:06:56.000 --> 00:06:58.240
Is the analogy with Michael.
00:06:58.480 --> 00:07:01.120
The rescuer who saves one, not a hundred.
00:07:01.519 --> 00:07:04.399
Now I admit from the outset that the analogy is loose.
00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:06.560
There are differences between the cases.
00:07:06.800 --> 00:07:23.680
Clearly, Michael is much more blameworthy than less effective activists are, and clearly we'd be we'd be much more concerned about Michael's kind of personality or whatever, but but we're focusing on the actions themselves, not the individual and their level of blameworthiness.
00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:30.000
So I think the case of Michael on the trains does point to a valid case against some activists.
00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:34.720
Because the train case illuminates a kind of general principle.
00:07:35.279 --> 00:07:38.879
And this principle applies when you have three options.
00:07:39.360 --> 00:07:43.600
One, you can help no one because it's quite costly to help.
00:07:44.720 --> 00:07:51.600
Two, you can help those who need it just a little bit, or three, you can help those who need it a lot.
00:07:52.399 --> 00:08:02.560
The principle says that if helping only a little bit is basically just as costly as helping a lot, then you should help a lot, morally speaking.
00:08:02.879 --> 00:08:15.199
The principle allows that if it's really quite costly to you to help, then you have no obligation to kind of maximise good consequences by kind of sacrificing your own interests a lot.
00:08:15.439 --> 00:08:28.560
But if you're taking on the cost anyway of helping others, where there is a cost, then it seems mistaken to only help a little bit when you could basically just as easily help a lot.
00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:38.480
And the the Michael case and these principles are basically just adapted in small ways from Theoran Palmer's 2016 journal article on donations to charity.
00:08:38.720 --> 00:08:50.399
And a quick aside for those who know more about the kind of technical details of ethics, the argument doesn't presuppose consequentialism, the idea that morality is just about maximising good consequences.
00:08:50.639 --> 00:08:56.960
I guess the core idea instead is don't refuse to help others if that would be almost pointless.
00:08:57.120 --> 00:08:59.519
Okay, so what can my critic say?
00:09:00.080 --> 00:09:12.960
Someone who wants to defend the activists I'm speaking about, someone who wants to diffuse any interesting parallel between Michael's actions in the railway case and the actions of the kind of less than ideal activist.
00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:22.480
So one important difference might be: well, look, in the train case, there's this clear and gigantic difference between the two rescues.
00:09:22.639 --> 00:09:27.440
Right, a difference of saving 99 extra people from dying, from being crushed by a train.
00:09:27.600 --> 00:09:30.559
But in the activist case, that's that's never true.
00:09:31.039 --> 00:09:33.519
Individuals just don't have that kind of power.
00:09:33.679 --> 00:09:33.919
Right?
00:09:34.639 --> 00:09:43.279
Becoming an activist for your local political party and knocking on doors to chat to voters doesn't have the power to save 99 people's lives.
00:09:43.600 --> 00:09:48.000
Okay, but in in reply, uh firstly, the point is kind of general, right?
00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:50.000
So saving lives is only an example.
00:09:50.240 --> 00:10:04.320
It would also s it would also be a bit strange to help only one person overcome a non-lethal issue like unemployment when we could just as easily help 10 or 100 people overcome unemployment.
00:10:04.639 --> 00:10:11.600
But to but if we wanted to stay with the idea of saving lives, we can still apply this reasoning to groups of activists.
00:10:11.759 --> 00:10:22.399
So a group of activists, a kind of charity or a campaign group or a social movement done badly, might still be just as bad, really, as the bad rescuer.
00:10:22.559 --> 00:10:34.320
Because campaigners against, say, climate change or animal abuse, they might be trying to save hundreds, thousands, even millions or billions of lives, at least over a big time period.
00:10:34.559 --> 00:10:43.519
And so whether they do a good job could be like whether some group of Michaels in the train case do a good job or a bad job.
00:10:45.039 --> 00:10:57.679
Alright, but here's a second objection to my argument, a second way of defending the less strategic activists against any idea that they're like Michael, the train rescuer.
00:10:58.480 --> 00:11:01.840
In the train case, what Michael does is gratuitous, right?
00:11:01.919 --> 00:11:03.200
It's completely needless.
00:11:03.360 --> 00:11:06.639
He just throws away 99 lives for no reason.
00:11:06.879 --> 00:11:16.240
But there are reasons, right, on this line of thought, why activists engage in the kind of campaigning that some might call unproductive.
00:11:16.399 --> 00:11:19.440
They're trying to remain true to their values.
00:11:19.679 --> 00:11:24.559
So-called unproductive activists are keeping the flame of resistance lit.
00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:28.080
And that has symbolic value, and that's all they can be asked to do.
00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:32.000
They can't be held responsible for how others react to their actions.
00:11:32.240 --> 00:11:41.360
For example, how the tabloid press misrepresents them or how people choose to remain willfully ignorant about the messages behind their protests.
00:11:42.399 --> 00:11:54.639
So I want to start my reply by digging a bit deeper and getting a better grip on this conflict of ideas by drawing on Max Weber, the celebrated German sociologist.
00:11:55.120 --> 00:12:07.360
So in 1919, he delivered a lecture called Politics as a Vocation, and he drew a distinction between the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility.
00:12:07.759 --> 00:12:11.840
The ethics of conviction is about staying true to your values at all costs.
00:12:12.159 --> 00:12:19.279
Whereas the ethics of responsibility says you have to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
00:12:20.240 --> 00:12:29.200
And these two different ways of looking at activism or politics diverge when holding on to integrity might lead to bad outcomes.
00:12:29.600 --> 00:12:36.639
And in that case, the ethics of conviction says I do what I believe to be right.
00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:39.679
And if the sky falls, it falls.
00:12:40.799 --> 00:12:44.000
All I can ensure is that I stay true to my values.
00:12:44.399 --> 00:12:51.120
And the ethics of responsibility says we have to take responsibility for what follows from our actions.
00:12:51.279 --> 00:12:56.960
And it's wrong to stick with the apparently principled action if that will cause really bad consequences.
00:12:57.200 --> 00:13:06.879
So I think that a pure ethics of conviction seems morally compromised, and that we need some kind of hybrid between conviction and responsibility.
00:13:07.279 --> 00:13:12.480
So the main reason for this is that as an activist, one's trying to change the world.
00:13:12.720 --> 00:13:19.360
So we can't really forget about consequences because consequences are what makes up the world.
00:13:19.679 --> 00:13:32.799
In other words, consequences are how we we know if our world has been changed by activism or if it's been left entirely as it was in the state whose deplorability was the very reason we started being activists.
00:13:33.440 --> 00:13:42.559
Now someone might think that holding on to a principle like keeping promises or not lying comes above achieving good outcomes.
00:13:43.120 --> 00:13:49.440
The 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant held this kind of view, but I don't think it's the right view.
00:13:49.679 --> 00:14:00.320
Suppose someone comes up to you and your friend in the street, holds a gun to your friend's head, and says, Promise to wire me a million dollars next week or I'll shoot your friend dead.
00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:06.559
But you don't have a million dollars, right, in your bank, so you can't promise to send that money.
00:14:06.720 --> 00:14:07.600
So what do you say?
00:14:07.840 --> 00:14:10.639
Do you explain that you can't possibly make that promise?
00:14:11.360 --> 00:14:13.279
No, absolutely not, right?
00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:16.480
You you you have to lie, you have to lie.
00:14:16.799 --> 00:14:28.559
To allow your friend to be killed is to grossly overvalue the purity of your relationship to truth, it's to undervalue your friend's life, and we have no permission to do that.
00:14:29.039 --> 00:14:36.240
Truth is so important for so many reasons, but you can lie to this person to save your friend's life.
00:14:36.480 --> 00:14:42.879
A very brief aside, please do consider hitting subscribe or follow or sharing this with a friend.
00:14:43.039 --> 00:14:55.600
It's so helpful for this journey that I'm on with listeners like you to really try and encourage rigorous but entertaining philosophy and you thinking about our world and our politics.
00:14:55.759 --> 00:14:58.320
So thanks so much if you can do that.
00:14:59.200 --> 00:15:04.799
Now I'll raise one more point on behalf of the uncompromising idealist here.
00:15:05.039 --> 00:15:15.919
They might say, well, okay, that example is worrying, but the ethics of responsibility in its focus on actions, it's prepared to use dubious, even wicked means.
00:15:16.320 --> 00:15:23.519
And surely it can't be moral to engage in kind of dirty tricks or exploitation to bring about the so-called better outcome.
00:15:23.919 --> 00:15:30.480
But I'm not saying that any means are justified, or that the ends always justify the means.
00:15:30.720 --> 00:15:39.360
I'm not saying that we can kill a thousand people to kind of free up the funds to save two thousand people from avoidable disease.
00:15:39.600 --> 00:15:59.279
Yes, of course we have to respect rights and stay within critical moral boundaries, but sometimes we do seem to have a responsibility to alter our protest methods, the way we use our time, the tone of our voice, the flavor or messaging of our campaigns to achieve a better outcome.
00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:10.240
So the criticism against my argument is that so-called productive activists are keeping the flame of resistance lit.
00:16:10.399 --> 00:16:14.159
And this has symbolic value, and that's all they can be asked to do.
00:16:14.320 --> 00:16:18.399
They cannot be held responsible for how others react to their actions.
00:16:18.559 --> 00:16:28.000
For example, how the tabloid press misrepresents and distorts them, or how people choose to remain willfully ignorant about the message behind their protests.
00:16:28.240 --> 00:16:35.039
A brief aside, all right, so in part two, let's move to some actual real-world cases and the case study I promised.
00:16:44.799 --> 00:16:53.120
So I've argued that often if we're going to be activists, we should be more productive and more strategic rather than less effective.
00:16:53.360 --> 00:16:55.679
But what is the actual import of that claim, right?
00:16:55.759 --> 00:16:59.759
Like, are there actually lots of activists who are doing a bad job of strategy?
00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:01.840
Well, I think there are quite a lot.
00:17:02.080 --> 00:17:10.559
So I'm going to focus on a case I know more about, which is select vegan activists who adopt certain hardline attitudes or means.
00:17:10.799 --> 00:17:15.279
But many of these points will generalize to other more extreme activist tactics.
00:17:15.920 --> 00:17:23.759
Let me just say straight off the bat, to avoid any kind of misunderstanding, that I appreciate the case for radical change in light of animals' rights.
00:17:23.920 --> 00:17:36.880
And I've written academic pieces and pieces for a general audience, and of course podcast episodes which you might have already listened to, about animals and their claims and the prejudice that we human beings have against other animals.
00:17:37.279 --> 00:17:43.200
We're insulated psychologically from what's happening in every single minute.
00:17:43.440 --> 00:17:50.079
The animals that are being uh torn apart and made to suffer and killed for a typically insufficient reason.
00:17:50.240 --> 00:17:58.640
And I'm not going to undermine for a second the strength of the claims that those trillions of animals that we use and abuse every year have.
00:17:59.440 --> 00:18:09.119
But that doesn't mean that just any old way of fighting for animals or for veganism is going to be helpful or productive or morally defensible.
00:18:09.359 --> 00:18:16.079
Indeed, it's it's because the cause is so important that we cannot just select any old set of tactics.
00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:29.759
And it seems that a minority of vegan activists at least are quite unhelpful, or at least some of their actions are unhelpful, or at the very least, they leave gains on the table for animals and for humans.
00:18:30.160 --> 00:18:32.319
So here are two concrete examples.
00:18:32.559 --> 00:18:44.319
In 2025, activists from Animal Rising blocked the meat aisle in the Sainsbury supermarket in the UK, and they got rammed by customers' trolleys, including an old man and an old woman.
00:18:44.559 --> 00:18:45.920
You can see this on YouTube.
00:18:46.480 --> 00:18:57.039
And the activists were actually very successful at stopping the old people's sort of shopping trolley attacks, but they but they may have been less successful in their main in their main goals.
00:18:57.200 --> 00:19:06.720
The problem is that the people affected by this direct action were largely unaware of the issues that the activists wanted to raise.
00:19:06.880 --> 00:19:20.400
And therefore these shoppers respond with anger and with indignation because they don't understand why the moral issue is so urgent at 2.34 pm on a Thursday afternoon, that it licenses such disruption.
00:19:20.720 --> 00:19:33.519
They focus on the moral issue that they've been stopped from going about their business, that they're trying to cook dinner for their grandchild, rather than reading what's on the placards and engaging with that.
00:19:33.680 --> 00:19:37.279
And this is kind of a predictable and foreseeable result.
00:19:37.759 --> 00:19:42.720
If you directly interfere through unexpected channels, people won't accept it.
00:19:43.039 --> 00:19:50.480
Their emotions go sky high, and they find it psychologically very easy to dismiss you and the cause that you raise.
00:19:50.720 --> 00:19:57.599
Then the press gets involved, drags the activists through the mud, and strengthens this focus on the disruption.
00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:04.160
The disruption becomes the focus, deflecting from the actual issues that motivate the disruption in the first place.
00:20:05.119 --> 00:20:11.119
Another example is a kind of umbrella set of attitudes that I might call vegan policing.
00:20:11.440 --> 00:20:39.119
So some activists express hardline views when they say things like, you're not really a vegan, or you're not really acceptable unless you're also a vegan activist, or oh, he isn't a real vegan because he still has leather shoes from the past, or you shouldn't have non-vegan friends because they're animal abusers, or attacking people who are vegan but for health reasons, rather than trying to combat the harms we inflict on animals when we commodify them.
00:20:39.599 --> 00:20:44.079
These activists might do some good work, and I don't want to deny that.
00:20:44.400 --> 00:20:49.359
But this portion of their work, this aspect of their work, seems counterproductive.
00:20:49.759 --> 00:20:53.279
Consider first that activists need to persuade others.
00:20:53.440 --> 00:20:55.519
That is the route to change.
00:20:55.680 --> 00:21:02.000
But how do you persuade someone to become vegan or to support vegan adjacent changes to society?
00:21:02.319 --> 00:21:20.960
Well, it's not by presenting veganism as harder to achieve than it really is, implying that someone isn't behaving acceptably until the last vestige of animal product is removed from their house or from their loft or wardrobe or what have you.
00:21:21.519 --> 00:21:31.039
It's not by presenting veganism as requiring social sacrifice and as being incompatible with having any friends who don't share your exact lifestyle.
00:21:31.599 --> 00:21:41.200
And it's not by presenting veganism as requiring a kind of paranoid diligence about everything you do, lest you get called out by your fellow activists.
00:21:42.079 --> 00:21:46.559
But this is what this kind of activism, unfortunately, does.
00:21:46.799 --> 00:21:48.480
Unintentionally, I believe.
00:21:48.720 --> 00:21:52.079
It presents veganism as an unattractive option.
00:21:52.319 --> 00:22:03.920
And some might say in reply that these kind of hardline strategies worked on them, that they were kind of seeking truth or guidance or motivation and Being guilt tripped and kind of hit in the face with the facts worked for them.
00:22:04.160 --> 00:22:06.079
But they're not in the majority.
00:22:06.319 --> 00:22:13.279
It might work for some, but most people are not looking for some abrupt and forceful reality check.
00:22:13.440 --> 00:22:18.480
So if if this is right, then why do people believe that these hardline tactics are so productive?
00:22:18.559 --> 00:22:20.160
Why what explains that then?
00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:27.440
Well, first, I think they're very correct in being motivated by the awful urgency of animal abuse.
00:22:27.680 --> 00:22:29.440
It's unfolding every minute.
00:22:29.680 --> 00:22:36.799
But the trouble is the move from it's urgent to I should therefore act instinctively and very, very quickly.
00:22:37.039 --> 00:22:46.319
That doesn't work when the problem is created and defended by a complex social system of laws and institutions and cultural moral beliefs.
00:22:46.559 --> 00:22:52.960
And second, the awful situation to which activists respond kind of creates emotions in the campaigner.
00:22:53.359 --> 00:22:55.440
They want to create a better world.
00:22:55.599 --> 00:23:11.440
And the negative emotion that they associate with injustice gets dissipated somewhat by giving one's audience an impassioned and forceful speech full of hard truths, or by getting lots of retweets on provocative posts.
00:23:12.000 --> 00:23:17.920
This feels better in the moment and provides activists, I think, with a sense of progress and of inspiration.
00:23:18.240 --> 00:23:20.000
But that doesn't mean it's effective.
00:23:20.240 --> 00:23:26.720
Our emotions aren't reliable guides to whether we're having the best impact in a complex world.
00:23:27.680 --> 00:23:33.839
Now let me kind of concede that I run the risk in highlighting these issues of making vegans seem unappealing, right?
00:23:33.920 --> 00:23:36.880
Of kind of contributing to the problem that I'm complaining about.
00:23:37.119 --> 00:23:42.960
So let me say that most vegans are very thoughtful and empathetic and interesting people, right?
00:23:43.039 --> 00:23:51.440
And I should flag vegans who do an incredible job in this respect, people like Romesh Rankinathan, the comedian, or Lewis Hamilton, the champion F1 driver.
00:23:51.599 --> 00:23:57.599
But that's not the idea a lot of people might get because of the shop window laid out by a kind of minority.
00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:00.000
Now, I admit I could be wrong here.
00:24:00.160 --> 00:24:06.160
I admit that the psychology of activism is not my specialist area because I'm not a psychologist.
00:24:06.400 --> 00:24:18.960
But it does seem to be a kind of powerful line of thought that if you want to convince someone to join you, most people need social inclusion, friendliness, an attractive presentation of your camp to be won over.
00:24:19.599 --> 00:24:25.920
Most people, if they feel attacked, if they feel called out, are likely to want to find some flaw in your camp.
00:24:26.079 --> 00:24:29.200
They're likely to want to decide that they don't want to be like you.
00:24:29.440 --> 00:24:38.720
They're likely to spot and latch onto, or even kind of make up, some element of hypocrisy that apparently writes you off.
00:24:39.039 --> 00:24:44.240
And then their decision is settled by the emotions, not by the rational merits of the case at hand.
00:24:44.640 --> 00:24:47.920
Because like it or not, we're animals, we're social animals.
00:24:48.799 --> 00:24:50.960
As vegans, you know, recognize.
00:24:51.200 --> 00:24:54.880
We can be driven by emotions pretty strongly.
00:24:55.119 --> 00:25:02.640
And then it seems to be the responsibility of the activist to do things that might generate actual change, not just to hit and hope.
00:25:03.599 --> 00:25:07.279
And so it becomes a moral issue how we act as activists.
00:25:07.440 --> 00:25:15.599
And it might be that the very beings we're trying to help have a claim against our using bad strategies or no strategies at all.
00:25:15.839 --> 00:25:22.240
Because they're the ones who lose out when things go badly or opportunities are missed.
00:25:23.920 --> 00:25:29.759
But let me let me kind of recognise that there's an objection to my argument that emerges at this point.
00:25:30.559 --> 00:25:37.519
I've assumed there's no obligation to be an activist at all, if and because there's a sacrifice that's involved that's significant.
00:25:38.079 --> 00:25:49.519
But can't the less strategic, more feeling-based activist invoke a similar line of argument as to why they're not willing to go through the work of developing a good theory of change?
00:25:49.759 --> 00:26:00.559
They can say if the non-activist can play the effort card in explaining why they're not an activist, then I can play the effort card in explaining why I'm not some sort of strategizing activist.
00:26:00.799 --> 00:26:15.839
Right, not everyone has the headspace or the resources to prepare for some sort of technically informed meeting with state officials, but I do just about have the energy to fly the flag, to wear the badge, to go to the sit-in, to shout from the rooftops.
00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:27.440
And this is partly because these forceful expressions of community spirit give me energy, and I don't have the energy to develop a kind of flow chart theory of change or whatever.
00:26:28.079 --> 00:26:34.640
So, in reply, I'm not saying people should do more than they're capable of doing.
00:26:34.799 --> 00:26:45.920
But the point is, bracketing the cases where someone's really, really unable to do more, many people are able to do a better job without putting a whole load more effort in.
00:26:46.640 --> 00:26:58.240
People can use empathy and consult free materials from people like Tobias, who I'll interview later, and put more thought into their activism to make it a lot better.
00:26:58.799 --> 00:27:05.039
And I think there's nothing about strategizing that means that we can't find community and catharsis.
00:27:05.839 --> 00:27:15.599
Indeed, maybe in the medium or longer term, activists who have more success in their campaigning because of strategy actually have stronger and more durable community.
00:27:16.400 --> 00:27:30.079
But if we have to choose between catharsis and outcomes for the humans or animals for whom we fight, then the choice as activists seems clear because it's not about us.
00:27:31.680 --> 00:27:34.799
Uh apart from, of course, when it is about us.
00:27:34.880 --> 00:27:44.720
And I kind of want to bracket the case of what we might call kind of self-activism here or self-representation when someone's fighting for themselves and their own rights.
00:27:44.880 --> 00:27:47.039
And here I think it might be different.
00:27:47.119 --> 00:28:02.480
And the decision to reject careful strategy might be a more personal decision, and I think people might be more willing to understand why someone is very angry and not very strategic about their own representation for their own rights.
00:28:02.640 --> 00:28:13.759
But I'm talking about cases like most climate activists and all vegans who are in part or in whole defending other people and other beings and their rights.
00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:21.920
So before I bring in Tobias and have the chat with him, one final objection to my argument is kind of probably worth noting.
00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:23.839
And this is the objection.
00:28:24.240 --> 00:28:37.519
How dare you will criticize us so-called ineffective activists when there are billions of people sitting on their ass on the sofa doing nothing for any cause whatsoever, right?
00:28:37.680 --> 00:28:39.039
How is this on us?
00:28:39.200 --> 00:28:41.519
How can you say that we're on the hook?
00:28:43.039 --> 00:28:54.480
So, in reply, maybe we should concede after all that people who don't do any work of any kind towards making the world better, but who have the resources to do so are on the hook as well.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:29:03.039
So if we take the whole group of people who don't do activism, don't give to charity and so on, some of them have very good reasons not to do that.
00:29:03.200 --> 00:29:04.880
So that seems morally fine.
00:29:05.119 --> 00:29:09.039
And those who don't have good reason, it does seem that they're on the hook too.
00:29:09.200 --> 00:29:15.759
But still, to be off the hook, good intentions and putting hours in as an activist might not be enough.
00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:28.000
I guess because we can realise that it's it's difficult to make change and that we do often have a responsibility to actually make change as far as we can or to contribute to that as far as we can.
00:29:28.079 --> 00:29:30.480
And that does seem to take strategy.
00:29:32.960 --> 00:29:34.880
Okay, so part three of three.
00:29:35.039 --> 00:29:41.920
If we want to have a more effective kind of campaigning, how can we be productive activists, right?
00:29:42.079 --> 00:29:49.200
How can we be activists who change the world, or who at least have the best chance of changing part of the world?
00:29:49.920 --> 00:30:01.279
So for this question, I went to Tobias Linert, who's the author of the 2017 book How to Create a Vegan World, a Pragmatic Approach, which has been translated into 14 different languages.
00:30:01.599 --> 00:30:09.839
Tobias thinks about strategy and helps people, companies, NGOs, universities to develop better strategies for change.
00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:20.160
And he's also the co-founder of ProVeg International, a charitable body that aims to reduce the consumption of animal products worldwide by 50% by 2040.
00:30:20.400 --> 00:30:23.039
So yeah, uh, thanks very much, Tobias, for joining me.
00:30:23.200 --> 00:30:35.200
Um firstly, I wanted to ask about like what some general principles are that someone can turn to if they want to be a strategic activist, kind of no matter their cause area.
00:30:36.160 --> 00:30:52.000
Yeah, if you talk about strategic a strategic attitude in general, I would say that is about um yeah, effectiveness and pragmatism and doing things that work rather than doing the things that you think you should do because there's rules that say you should do it like that, right?
00:30:52.559 --> 00:31:12.160
Um so um, for instance, um you could be activist about a certain behavior or uh yeah, some certain change in society, and you could demonstrate that behavior very much yourself um to a fault in a way.
00:31:12.400 --> 00:31:22.960
So for instance, I would say that uh trying to be consistent across the board in terms of the behavior that's desirable to you um is not always a good thing.
00:31:23.119 --> 00:31:52.559
So, for instance, if you say, say you're a climate activist and you say, like, I'm never gonna fly because I I I think flying is uh is too damaging for the environment, but then if you would miss out on opportunities to do real good by flying, so you maybe go to a conference and you have a give an effective talk there, or you get inspired by being around those people and at that conference, um then I would say, yeah, don't don't prioritize that principle over the effect um your action might have.
00:31:52.799 --> 00:31:54.240
So that is that is one thing.
00:31:54.480 --> 00:32:05.119
Another thing would be to like um ask the things that you know are reasonable and doable rather than asking the things that are your ideal.
00:32:05.359 --> 00:32:15.039
So those are some just ideas of of of how you might approach being um yeah, effective or pragmatic as a change maker.
00:32:16.400 --> 00:32:27.200
One tip or suggestion or principle that you can always apply is is is what I call uh yanya, which is called, which which means you are not your audience, yanya.
00:32:27.599 --> 00:32:43.839
Um and um I think it's it's always really important to imagine what your audience is like, who it is, what they want, what their interests are, and put yourself in their shoes and not assume that they want the same as you.
00:32:44.000 --> 00:33:07.599
And that will already be um a very good tool to um to lead you in a more strategic direction because we're always like likely or prone to um yeah, spew out what we want ourselves, what our ideals are, what our ideals for or our arguments for action or for behavior change are, and we will project towards other people.
00:33:07.759 --> 00:33:20.720
Now, if we see that these other people are not like us in many ways, um, and we can approach things from their end, from their side, then that's already a very good basis for for pragmatism and compromises, I think.
00:33:20.960 --> 00:33:21.440
Mm-hmm.
00:33:22.880 --> 00:33:29.519
What does it's a very general question, but like from you, you know, I know I know you look at a lot of data on theory of change.
00:33:29.759 --> 00:33:30.640
What does that tell us?
00:33:30.799 --> 00:33:35.920
Does it tell us anything interesting beyond just what seems intuitive about how to make change?
00:33:36.319 --> 00:33:36.799
Yeah.
00:33:37.039 --> 00:33:40.160
Um, so we don't have, I would say, in enough data.
00:33:40.319 --> 00:33:43.680
We don't have enough data but theories, interventions that work.
00:33:44.160 --> 00:33:56.079
Uh, what I think I can confidently say is that there is more evidence pointing in the direction of more moderate asks that work, more um uh less radical messaging.
00:33:56.240 --> 00:34:18.320
For instance, in the case of uh my field veganism, um, if you say go vegan or otherwise you're a murderer, um, this kind of like absolutist um uh dialogue, and I'm putting it a bit extreme now, um, but um this will will more often, according to research, alienate people um if if you use guilt and and and shame.
00:34:18.480 --> 00:34:30.000
That might work in some some cases, but more often it seems to alienate people, and so we know that from research, and we can we can look at the research and and and consequently decide what approach is the best.
00:34:30.079 --> 00:34:44.239
And and here it's like really uh important to emphasize that like pragmatism here is a matter of choosing what you think uh from research or whatever works the best and not choosing on the basis of oh this fits me better.
00:34:44.480 --> 00:34:47.679
So for or this is like what I naturally lean to.
00:34:47.760 --> 00:34:49.840
Like, for instance, you mentioned hunters.
00:34:50.000 --> 00:34:54.079
Uh I with hunters I have a big uh problem being pragmatic.
00:34:54.159 --> 00:35:03.360
Like if I encounter a hunter who is shooting at that moment in the fields right next to me, I will get angry um and I will shout at him.
00:35:03.599 --> 00:35:06.880
And um that is not the most pragmatic thing to do.
00:35:07.039 --> 00:35:16.079
That is just something I at that moment I I almost can't control, but um almost a choice not to be pragmatic and to ignore the research, etc.
00:35:16.400 --> 00:35:30.159
So what I want to say here is like either you you agree with yourself that you're gonna go for what you think is most effective, or you're gonna say um intentionally or not, no, I'm gonna ignore this because this is a better fit for me.
00:35:30.400 --> 00:35:36.000
I don't think this is always wrong or this is always unavoidable, like in my case with the hunters.
00:35:36.159 --> 00:35:39.360
Um but um it's good to be aware of that at least.
00:35:40.400 --> 00:35:44.000
I must say it's very brave to start with someone with a lethal, a lethal weapon.
00:35:44.159 --> 00:36:01.760
Um but okay, and then just imagining a listener who's sort of maybe a bit new to the idea of being strategic, who's willing to to who's sympathetic to the idea, but is kind of concerned about uh compromising their values too much or kind of becoming involved in what they see as sort of dirty work.
00:36:02.719 --> 00:36:22.639
What are some types of some kind of modes of being pragmatic that uh are less controversial and that everyone should be willing to kind of give a go to, even if they want to kind of set aside being being highly, highly, highly strategizing all the way to kind of yeah, potentially saying things I don't agree with or something?
00:36:22.960 --> 00:36:46.239
Yeah, for first of all, if you talk about like the fear of compromising your values, um I would say that like for instance when I say something about meat reduction rather than about veganism, some other people might say you're compromising because yeah, you're about eliminating animal consumption and animal production, so you can't talk about reduction.
00:36:46.320 --> 00:36:48.880
Uh you can't talk about these incremental steps.
00:36:49.199 --> 00:36:57.840
But I'm thinking that like if I believe this is more impactful, then I'm not compromising because I'm doing it for the animal.
00:36:57.920 --> 00:37:08.239
So I'm trying always, I think another way of being pragmatic is to look at to look at it from the point of the the victims and look at what the pig that is locked up would want.
00:37:08.480 --> 00:37:13.760
And uh he or she would want me to be effective, they would not want me to be a purist.
00:37:13.840 --> 00:37:18.719
Um they would want me to do whatever gets them out of the cage, right?
00:37:19.039 --> 00:37:23.679
So um I think that's that that is uh another way of looking at it.
00:37:23.920 --> 00:37:43.760
I always tell people, activists in my area, um, who will tell me, like, oh, look, you can't compromise like this because anti-slavery abolitionists would also not have said, like, let's abuse the slaves or let's only have slaves on Monday or whatever, just like the Meatless Monday campaign says you shouldn't eat uh meat on Monday.
00:37:43.920 --> 00:38:05.760
But the fact is, um, these anti-slavery abolitionists also were very pragmatic and they had uh asks or interventions that were exactly about reduction of harm and incremental change rather than saying uh look, uh we have to abolish slavery today uh rather than tomorrow, even though they believed that.
00:38:05.920 --> 00:38:23.440
But they too they started by um asking things, having asks demands about the the the health of the British sailors on the ship rather than the enslaved people, or they were talking about uh the circumstances in which these enslaved people were on the boats.
00:38:23.679 --> 00:38:35.360
So uh that is very, very parallel to what in my movement of animal welfare and animal rights, uh many organizations ask, which is uh better, higher welfare for animals.
00:38:35.599 --> 00:38:41.920
Of course, you always have to keep in mind that there might be something like greenwashing or humane washing or or whatever.
00:38:42.239 --> 00:38:50.480
So um yeah, we we cannot like be happy with with changes that are too small in in the case you're talking about institution or whatever.
00:38:50.559 --> 00:38:50.639
Yeah.
00:38:50.960 --> 00:38:59.280
Where the greenwash greenwashing and so on is like uh kind of just surface level, meaningless changes to try and get reputational enhancements for a company or whatever.
00:38:59.519 --> 00:38:59.760
Exactly.
00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:02.719
That's what you yes, yeah, to distract from the real issues, etc.
00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:06.320
So that that would obviously be not pragmatic, not effective, and damaging.
00:39:06.400 --> 00:39:06.559
Yeah.
00:39:07.199 --> 00:39:19.199
So one one of the criteria I guess you have for like how how should I actually approach being pragmatic is like, I think, if I understand correctly, the degree to which most people already agree with your view.
00:39:19.360 --> 00:39:23.119
So like how how to what extent has the argument already been won in public?
00:39:23.280 --> 00:39:32.559
So can you talk about how whether a a view is is is dominant or is popular or is fringe affects how we should be pragmatic?
00:39:33.039 --> 00:39:44.559
Yeah, I think that um the public support, a certain intervention, a certain ask, a certain message has will determine how confrontational, et cetera, you can be with it.
00:39:44.719 --> 00:39:50.719
Like, for instance, if you want to protect cats, you can go a lot further than when you want to protect chickens, right?
00:39:51.039 --> 00:39:54.000
Um people will accept a lot more of you.
00:39:54.239 --> 00:40:11.599
Um I think that um there is quite a bit of an overlap for me between being pragmatic and being a good kind communicator and have good like palatable messaging, um, and and and using empathy and and and and kindness.
00:40:12.079 --> 00:40:19.199
And um I think that is in so many ways, in so many places appropriate.
00:40:19.360 --> 00:40:25.119
And uh, like you said, people might think that they're like betraying their values if they are like that.
00:40:25.360 --> 00:40:39.840
I always give the example of um or of Daryl Davis, who is um an activist, an anti-racism activist, uh, black man, um, and he uh befriended Ku Klux Klan people.
00:40:40.159 --> 00:40:47.519
Um and the idealist or the the the critic of this might say, like, yeah, we should not talk to these people, they're horrible.
00:40:47.599 --> 00:40:52.639
We should just completely ignore them and and boycott them and not have anything to do with them.
00:40:52.880 --> 00:41:01.519
But by having relationships with these people, he was able to convince hundreds of them to actually drop their ideology and to leave the clan.
00:41:01.760 --> 00:41:11.039
So he was effective by being very kind to people that um yeah, other people said you you have no business talking to.
00:41:13.360 --> 00:41:13.840
Great.
00:41:14.079 --> 00:41:21.199
Um I I don't think I have any more questions, but um yeah, is there anything you wanted to add at all?
00:41:21.519 --> 00:41:31.119
Yeah, maybe I can say like like um one one one easy way, especially for for animal activists, to um uh summarize what pragmatism is about.
00:41:31.440 --> 00:41:37.280
The question is is not um am I right or is this my truth, but um does this work?
00:41:37.519 --> 00:41:44.639
So it's not about like being right, it's not about like like um spreading your big truth with a big T to people.
00:41:44.800 --> 00:42:18.719
And I'm not again saying that uh people should lie, but there is uh often uh like um proneness of people to like speak their mind and to say like I have to like really say it the way it is and I have to tell them the truth, and that is more like almost more like an ego thing sometimes, like like at least I didn't lie and I was brave and I spoke the truth, and and that all of that is is is of secondary importance to uh how did your message arrive with the the the audience you intended for and did it do something among them?
00:42:18.880 --> 00:42:30.159
And and and this blatant, very vocal truth maybe can do something sometimes with some people, um, but often like um people need to hear it in a little bit of a softer way.
00:42:30.320 --> 00:42:41.599
So there is no this is maybe important to say, I think that that maybe the the the key to pragmatism is adaptiveness and and you know not have any fixed way to go about things.
00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:46.960
Um because if you have a fixed way, then you're almost uh dogmatic, I would say.
00:42:47.199 --> 00:42:58.559
So um, and this also means that like being more aggressive or being more direct or whatever can be the best way and can be the most effective way in some cases, but in other cases it will not be.
00:42:58.639 --> 00:43:07.760
And so the the ability to like distinguish between those and to to shift from one approach to the other, that flexibility is is I think the essence of being pregnant.
00:43:10.880 --> 00:43:13.679
So thank you so much for listening to this podcast.
00:43:13.840 --> 00:43:17.840
If you want to help me out and stay connected, please do hit that follow button.
00:43:17.920 --> 00:43:27.280
It really is appreciated and helps me on my journey to bring rigorous but entertaining philosophy to more people in a bid to improve the world.
00:43:27.519 --> 00:43:34.400
And you can also get in touch or fill in the survey in the show notes to give me some feedback on how I can improve this podcast.
00:43:34.559 --> 00:43:42.960
Do check out similar past episodes on raising kids vegan, on animal and human rights, and on the idea of votes for children.
00:43:43.199 --> 00:43:47.119
And see you next time for more surprising ethics.
00:00:00.479 --> 00:00:08.960
Allow me to give you a slightly unlikely thought experiment that contains the seeds of quite a provocative argument against some activism.
00:00:09.279 --> 00:00:11.519
This guy's out for a walk, call in Michael.
00:00:11.679 --> 00:00:16.879
When in the distance he sees a hundred people tied down to a railway line.
00:00:17.039 --> 00:00:22.000
And on a separate track, he also spots a further one person tied down.
00:00:22.399 --> 00:00:26.399
He sees two runaway trains coming, one on either track.
00:00:26.559 --> 00:00:30.160
And so within a minute, all 101 people will be dead.
00:00:30.399 --> 00:00:42.000
Unless Michael can do something, and he realizes that all he can do is to put his own outstretched arm onto one of the tracks to slow down the train so that the train stops before hitting the people.
00:00:42.159 --> 00:00:46.240
But there's a big gap between the tracks, so he can't stop both trains.
00:00:46.479 --> 00:00:50.320
He can either save the one person or the a hundred.
00:00:50.719 --> 00:00:58.560
And let's suppose that he's not under a moral obligation to save anyone, given how costly and awful it would be for him to lose his arm.
00:00:58.719 --> 00:01:03.039
Michael considers his options, and then he chooses to sacrifice his arm after all.
00:01:03.359 --> 00:01:09.680
But to save the one person, letting the a hundred die.
00:01:10.079 --> 00:01:13.120
There's something morally off about this, right?
00:01:13.599 --> 00:01:18.319
This is basically a thought experiment given by the philosopher Theoran Pummer.
00:01:18.480 --> 00:01:37.920
Now we can extend this kind of thought to activism, and say that activists who are well meaning but unstrategic, and who have little hope of doing serious good, might be somewhat similar, morally speaking, to Michael, the bad rescuer, who saves one when he could have saved a hundred.
00:01:38.400 --> 00:01:45.280
Because some activists do some good, but they could be doing a whole lot more good, or they could have a good shot at doing that.
00:01:45.519 --> 00:01:50.799
And so are they on the line, morally speaking, in a similar way to Michael?
00:01:51.120 --> 00:02:03.200
In this episode we ask, do people who go out of their way to fight for a good cause in fact do wrong when they campaign in ways that are unpromising and unstrategic?
00:02:03.519 --> 00:02:07.680
Are many activists in the real world indeed doing a bad job?
00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:12.159
Which should we prioritize conviction or strategy?
00:02:12.479 --> 00:02:17.120
And what are some principles for a morally sound and promising activism.
00:02:36.639 --> 00:02:44.960
This is the podcast that always promises you a surprising and stimulating idea about ethics or politics in every single episode.
00:02:45.199 --> 00:02:54.000
Thanks to the Centre for Research in Ethics, an academic centre based in Montreal, for their continued support of this podcast, and thanks to you, the listener.
00:02:54.159 --> 00:03:02.560
It's so good to be able to see that I am not doing this alone, and a sense that you care about philosophy and how it can improve and enrich our world.
00:03:02.800 --> 00:03:09.280
So today our topic is activism, and I have a really interesting interview near the end with an activist and theorist of change.
00:03:09.520 --> 00:03:16.960
But as always, we begin with the status quo, the dominant majority view on our topic before looking at a surprising alternative.
00:03:17.120 --> 00:03:29.599
So the status quo seems to be that activists are sometimes laudable, but sometimes either useless or irritating or exasperating, especially if they disrupt normal life or are hypocritical.
00:03:29.759 --> 00:03:41.759
But according to the status quo, even if we're right to criticize some activists in these respects, activists who fight for a good cause don't do anything wrong against those who they fight to protect.
00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:52.479
So to illustrate the status quo, uh let's turn to the comment section on some YouTube videos depicting activists from Just Stop Oil, a UK-based environmental group.
00:03:52.639 --> 00:04:03.360
So the first set of comments respond to a video where a protester jumps onto a snooker table during a live broadcast and throws some orange powder all over the snooker table.
00:04:04.240 --> 00:04:06.400
Oh, give me a break.
00:04:07.199 --> 00:04:10.800
The narcissism of these people is limitless.
00:04:11.360 --> 00:04:15.520
He should be made to pay all the spectators whose night he's ruined.
00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:16.720
He did it.
00:04:16.959 --> 00:04:18.480
He stopped oil.
00:04:19.040 --> 00:04:23.279
The dye that makes that powder orange was made from oil.
00:04:24.079 --> 00:04:33.360
Okay, and the next set of comments are on a video showing a bus driver ramming into protesters who are trying to stop the bus.
00:04:34.160 --> 00:04:36.240
Buy that driver a beer.
00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:39.759
Winner of the best driver of year award.
00:04:40.319 --> 00:04:43.839
The arrogance of these protesters is unbelievable.
00:04:44.959 --> 00:04:48.720
So these comments give us some evidence about what a lot of people think.
00:04:48.959 --> 00:04:58.240
Oftentimes people are irritated by what they see as the disruption caused by activism, and they're keen to make out issues of hypocrisy wherever they can.
00:04:58.480 --> 00:05:07.839
But there's no suggestion here that it's those who depend on the environment who are wronged by these environmental activists.
00:05:08.079 --> 00:05:12.560
That's not part of the kind of common critique of activism.
00:05:13.360 --> 00:05:22.000
But the surprising alternative kind of drops this stuff about hypocrisy and so on and focuses instead on a different sort of critique.
00:05:22.240 --> 00:05:38.240
So the alternative view says, look, activists often act in a way that's morally compromised because of their effects or lack of effect on those they fight to defend, on those they're standing up for, and whose cause they're taking on.
00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:56.240
So perhaps surprisingly, it's the very individuals that these activists fight for who have the moral complaint against the activists, even though they're putting in even though they're often voluntarily putting in time and money into trying to defend their interests.
00:05:56.800 --> 00:06:11.360
So applied to the just stop oil case, the idea is that the just stop oil people might be getting out of bed in the morning precisely to fight for people whose lives or welfare depends on a stable climate.
00:06:11.519 --> 00:06:19.199
But it's those people who are most vulnerable to climate change who actually have the strongest complaint against those activists.
00:06:19.360 --> 00:06:23.120
If and because they could be doing a much better job.
00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:25.839
So the episode has three parts really.
00:06:26.079 --> 00:06:30.079
Firstly, we ask, is being a bad activist morally criticizable?
00:06:30.240 --> 00:06:34.000
And is it like being a bad rescuer, Michael, in the train case?
00:06:34.240 --> 00:06:39.839
Secondly, we'll get into a case study of bad activism on a topic to be revealed.
00:06:40.079 --> 00:06:45.519
And thirdly, I have a chat with the strategy activist and writer Tobias Leanot.
00:06:46.160 --> 00:06:55.680
So the starting point for this surprising alternative view, which I concede as quite provocative, but if you're an activist, do bear with me.
00:06:56.000 --> 00:06:58.240
Is the analogy with Michael.
00:06:58.480 --> 00:07:01.120
The rescuer who saves one, not a hundred.
00:07:01.519 --> 00:07:04.399
Now I admit from the outset that the analogy is loose.
00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:06.560
There are differences between the cases.
00:07:06.800 --> 00:07:23.680
Clearly, Michael is much more blameworthy than less effective activists are, and clearly we'd be we'd be much more concerned about Michael's kind of personality or whatever, but but we're focusing on the actions themselves, not the individual and their level of blameworthiness.
00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:30.000
So I think the case of Michael on the trains does point to a valid case against some activists.
00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:34.720
Because the train case illuminates a kind of general principle.
00:07:35.279 --> 00:07:38.879
And this principle applies when you have three options.
00:07:39.360 --> 00:07:43.600
One, you can help no one because it's quite costly to help.
00:07:44.720 --> 00:07:51.600
Two, you can help those who need it just a little bit, or three, you can help those who need it a lot.
00:07:52.399 --> 00:08:02.560
The principle says that if helping only a little bit is basically just as costly as helping a lot, then you should help a lot, morally speaking.
00:08:02.879 --> 00:08:15.199
The principle allows that if it's really quite costly to you to help, then you have no obligation to kind of maximise good consequences by kind of sacrificing your own interests a lot.
00:08:15.439 --> 00:08:28.560
But if you're taking on the cost anyway of helping others, where there is a cost, then it seems mistaken to only help a little bit when you could basically just as easily help a lot.
00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:38.480
And the the Michael case and these principles are basically just adapted in small ways from Theoran Palmer's 2016 journal article on donations to charity.
00:08:38.720 --> 00:08:50.399
And a quick aside for those who know more about the kind of technical details of ethics, the argument doesn't presuppose consequentialism, the idea that morality is just about maximising good consequences.
00:08:50.639 --> 00:08:56.960
I guess the core idea instead is don't refuse to help others if that would be almost pointless.
00:08:57.120 --> 00:08:59.519
Okay, so what can my critic say?
00:09:00.080 --> 00:09:12.960
Someone who wants to defend the activists I'm speaking about, someone who wants to diffuse any interesting parallel between Michael's actions in the railway case and the actions of the kind of less than ideal activist.
00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:22.480
So one important difference might be: well, look, in the train case, there's this clear and gigantic difference between the two rescues.
00:09:22.639 --> 00:09:27.440
Right, a difference of saving 99 extra people from dying, from being crushed by a train.
00:09:27.600 --> 00:09:30.559
But in the activist case, that's that's never true.
00:09:31.039 --> 00:09:33.519
Individuals just don't have that kind of power.
00:09:33.679 --> 00:09:33.919
Right?
00:09:34.639 --> 00:09:43.279
Becoming an activist for your local political party and knocking on doors to chat to voters doesn't have the power to save 99 people's lives.
00:09:43.600 --> 00:09:48.000
Okay, but in in reply, uh firstly, the point is kind of general, right?
00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:50.000
So saving lives is only an example.
00:09:50.240 --> 00:10:04.320
It would also s it would also be a bit strange to help only one person overcome a non-lethal issue like unemployment when we could just as easily help 10 or 100 people overcome unemployment.
00:10:04.639 --> 00:10:11.600
But to but if we wanted to stay with the idea of saving lives, we can still apply this reasoning to groups of activists.
00:10:11.759 --> 00:10:22.399
So a group of activists, a kind of charity or a campaign group or a social movement done badly, might still be just as bad, really, as the bad rescuer.
00:10:22.559 --> 00:10:34.320
Because campaigners against, say, climate change or animal abuse, they might be trying to save hundreds, thousands, even millions or billions of lives, at least over a big time period.
00:10:34.559 --> 00:10:43.519
And so whether they do a good job could be like whether some group of Michaels in the train case do a good job or a bad job.
00:10:45.039 --> 00:10:57.679
Alright, but here's a second objection to my argument, a second way of defending the less strategic activists against any idea that they're like Michael, the train rescuer.
00:10:58.480 --> 00:11:01.840
In the train case, what Michael does is gratuitous, right?
00:11:01.919 --> 00:11:03.200
It's completely needless.
00:11:03.360 --> 00:11:06.639
He just throws away 99 lives for no reason.
00:11:06.879 --> 00:11:16.240
But there are reasons, right, on this line of thought, why activists engage in the kind of campaigning that some might call unproductive.
00:11:16.399 --> 00:11:19.440
They're trying to remain true to their values.
00:11:19.679 --> 00:11:24.559
So-called unproductive activists are keeping the flame of resistance lit.
00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:28.080
And that has symbolic value, and that's all they can be asked to do.
00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:32.000
They can't be held responsible for how others react to their actions.
00:11:32.240 --> 00:11:41.360
For example, how the tabloid press misrepresents them or how people choose to remain willfully ignorant about the messages behind their protests.
00:11:42.399 --> 00:11:54.639
So I want to start my reply by digging a bit deeper and getting a better grip on this conflict of ideas by drawing on Max Weber, the celebrated German sociologist.
00:11:55.120 --> 00:12:07.360
So in 1919, he delivered a lecture called Politics as a Vocation, and he drew a distinction between the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility.
00:12:07.759 --> 00:12:11.840
The ethics of conviction is about staying true to your values at all costs.
00:12:12.159 --> 00:12:19.279
Whereas the ethics of responsibility says you have to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
00:12:20.240 --> 00:12:29.200
And these two different ways of looking at activism or politics diverge when holding on to integrity might lead to bad outcomes.
00:12:29.600 --> 00:12:36.639
And in that case, the ethics of conviction says I do what I believe to be right.
00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:39.679
And if the sky falls, it falls.
00:12:40.799 --> 00:12:44.000
All I can ensure is that I stay true to my values.
00:12:44.399 --> 00:12:51.120
And the ethics of responsibility says we have to take responsibility for what follows from our actions.
00:12:51.279 --> 00:12:56.960
And it's wrong to stick with the apparently principled action if that will cause really bad consequences.
00:12:57.200 --> 00:13:06.879
So I think that a pure ethics of conviction seems morally compromised, and that we need some kind of hybrid between conviction and responsibility.
00:13:07.279 --> 00:13:12.480
So the main reason for this is that as an activist, one's trying to change the world.
00:13:12.720 --> 00:13:19.360
So we can't really forget about consequences because consequences are what makes up the world.
00:13:19.679 --> 00:13:32.799
In other words, consequences are how we we know if our world has been changed by activism or if it's been left entirely as it was in the state whose deplorability was the very reason we started being activists.
00:13:33.440 --> 00:13:42.559
Now someone might think that holding on to a principle like keeping promises or not lying comes above achieving good outcomes.
00:13:43.120 --> 00:13:49.440
The 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant held this kind of view, but I don't think it's the right view.
00:13:49.679 --> 00:14:00.320
Suppose someone comes up to you and your friend in the street, holds a gun to your friend's head, and says, Promise to wire me a million dollars next week or I'll shoot your friend dead.
00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:06.559
But you don't have a million dollars, right, in your bank, so you can't promise to send that money.
00:14:06.720 --> 00:14:07.600
So what do you say?
00:14:07.840 --> 00:14:10.639
Do you explain that you can't possibly make that promise?
00:14:11.360 --> 00:14:13.279
No, absolutely not, right?
00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:16.480
You you you have to lie, you have to lie.
00:14:16.799 --> 00:14:28.559
To allow your friend to be killed is to grossly overvalue the purity of your relationship to truth, it's to undervalue your friend's life, and we have no permission to do that.
00:14:29.039 --> 00:14:36.240
Truth is so important for so many reasons, but you can lie to this person to save your friend's life.
00:14:36.480 --> 00:14:42.879
A very brief aside, please do consider hitting subscribe or follow or sharing this with a friend.
00:14:43.039 --> 00:14:55.600
It's so helpful for this journey that I'm on with listeners like you to really try and encourage rigorous but entertaining philosophy and you thinking about our world and our politics.
00:14:55.759 --> 00:14:58.320
So thanks so much if you can do that.
00:14:59.200 --> 00:15:04.799
Now I'll raise one more point on behalf of the uncompromising idealist here.
00:15:05.039 --> 00:15:15.919
They might say, well, okay, that example is worrying, but the ethics of responsibility in its focus on actions, it's prepared to use dubious, even wicked means.
00:15:16.320 --> 00:15:23.519
And surely it can't be moral to engage in kind of dirty tricks or exploitation to bring about the so-called better outcome.
00:15:23.919 --> 00:15:30.480
But I'm not saying that any means are justified, or that the ends always justify the means.
00:15:30.720 --> 00:15:39.360
I'm not saying that we can kill a thousand people to kind of free up the funds to save two thousand people from avoidable disease.
00:15:39.600 --> 00:15:59.279
Yes, of course we have to respect rights and stay within critical moral boundaries, but sometimes we do seem to have a responsibility to alter our protest methods, the way we use our time, the tone of our voice, the flavor or messaging of our campaigns to achieve a better outcome.
00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:10.240
So the criticism against my argument is that so-called productive activists are keeping the flame of resistance lit.
00:16:10.399 --> 00:16:14.159
And this has symbolic value, and that's all they can be asked to do.
00:16:14.320 --> 00:16:18.399
They cannot be held responsible for how others react to their actions.
00:16:18.559 --> 00:16:28.000
For example, how the tabloid press misrepresents and distorts them, or how people choose to remain willfully ignorant about the message behind their protests.
00:16:28.240 --> 00:16:35.039
A brief aside, all right, so in part two, let's move to some actual real-world cases and the case study I promised.
00:16:44.799 --> 00:16:53.120
So I've argued that often if we're going to be activists, we should be more productive and more strategic rather than less effective.
00:16:53.360 --> 00:16:55.679
But what is the actual import of that claim, right?
00:16:55.759 --> 00:16:59.759
Like, are there actually lots of activists who are doing a bad job of strategy?
00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:01.840
Well, I think there are quite a lot.
00:17:02.080 --> 00:17:10.559
So I'm going to focus on a case I know more about, which is select vegan activists who adopt certain hardline attitudes or means.
00:17:10.799 --> 00:17:15.279
But many of these points will generalize to other more extreme activist tactics.
00:17:15.920 --> 00:17:23.759
Let me just say straight off the bat, to avoid any kind of misunderstanding, that I appreciate the case for radical change in light of animals' rights.
00:17:23.920 --> 00:17:36.880
And I've written academic pieces and pieces for a general audience, and of course podcast episodes which you might have already listened to, about animals and their claims and the prejudice that we human beings have against other animals.
00:17:37.279 --> 00:17:43.200
We're insulated psychologically from what's happening in every single minute.
00:17:43.440 --> 00:17:50.079
The animals that are being uh torn apart and made to suffer and killed for a typically insufficient reason.
00:17:50.240 --> 00:17:58.640
And I'm not going to undermine for a second the strength of the claims that those trillions of animals that we use and abuse every year have.
00:17:59.440 --> 00:18:09.119
But that doesn't mean that just any old way of fighting for animals or for veganism is going to be helpful or productive or morally defensible.
00:18:09.359 --> 00:18:16.079
Indeed, it's it's because the cause is so important that we cannot just select any old set of tactics.
00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:29.759
And it seems that a minority of vegan activists at least are quite unhelpful, or at least some of their actions are unhelpful, or at the very least, they leave gains on the table for animals and for humans.
00:18:30.160 --> 00:18:32.319
So here are two concrete examples.
00:18:32.559 --> 00:18:44.319
In 2025, activists from Animal Rising blocked the meat aisle in the Sainsbury supermarket in the UK, and they got rammed by customers' trolleys, including an old man and an old woman.
00:18:44.559 --> 00:18:45.920
You can see this on YouTube.
00:18:46.480 --> 00:18:57.039
And the activists were actually very successful at stopping the old people's sort of shopping trolley attacks, but they but they may have been less successful in their main in their main goals.
00:18:57.200 --> 00:19:06.720
The problem is that the people affected by this direct action were largely unaware of the issues that the activists wanted to raise.
00:19:06.880 --> 00:19:20.400
And therefore these shoppers respond with anger and with indignation because they don't understand why the moral issue is so urgent at 2.34 pm on a Thursday afternoon, that it licenses such disruption.
00:19:20.720 --> 00:19:33.519
They focus on the moral issue that they've been stopped from going about their business, that they're trying to cook dinner for their grandchild, rather than reading what's on the placards and engaging with that.
00:19:33.680 --> 00:19:37.279
And this is kind of a predictable and foreseeable result.
00:19:37.759 --> 00:19:42.720
If you directly interfere through unexpected channels, people won't accept it.
00:19:43.039 --> 00:19:50.480
Their emotions go sky high, and they find it psychologically very easy to dismiss you and the cause that you raise.
00:19:50.720 --> 00:19:57.599
Then the press gets involved, drags the activists through the mud, and strengthens this focus on the disruption.
00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:04.160
The disruption becomes the focus, deflecting from the actual issues that motivate the disruption in the first place.
00:20:05.119 --> 00:20:11.119
Another example is a kind of umbrella set of attitudes that I might call vegan policing.
00:20:11.440 --> 00:20:39.119
So some activists express hardline views when they say things like, you're not really a vegan, or you're not really acceptable unless you're also a vegan activist, or oh, he isn't a real vegan because he still has leather shoes from the past, or you shouldn't have non-vegan friends because they're animal abusers, or attacking people who are vegan but for health reasons, rather than trying to combat the harms we inflict on animals when we commodify them.
00:20:39.599 --> 00:20:44.079
These activists might do some good work, and I don't want to deny that.
00:20:44.400 --> 00:20:49.359
But this portion of their work, this aspect of their work, seems counterproductive.
00:20:49.759 --> 00:20:53.279
Consider first that activists need to persuade others.
00:20:53.440 --> 00:20:55.519
That is the route to change.
00:20:55.680 --> 00:21:02.000
But how do you persuade someone to become vegan or to support vegan adjacent changes to society?
00:21:02.319 --> 00:21:20.960
Well, it's not by presenting veganism as harder to achieve than it really is, implying that someone isn't behaving acceptably until the last vestige of animal product is removed from their house or from their loft or wardrobe or what have you.
00:21:21.519 --> 00:21:31.039
It's not by presenting veganism as requiring social sacrifice and as being incompatible with having any friends who don't share your exact lifestyle.
00:21:31.599 --> 00:21:41.200
And it's not by presenting veganism as requiring a kind of paranoid diligence about everything you do, lest you get called out by your fellow activists.
00:21:42.079 --> 00:21:46.559
But this is what this kind of activism, unfortunately, does.
00:21:46.799 --> 00:21:48.480
Unintentionally, I believe.
00:21:48.720 --> 00:21:52.079
It presents veganism as an unattractive option.
00:21:52.319 --> 00:22:03.920
And some might say in reply that these kind of hardline strategies worked on them, that they were kind of seeking truth or guidance or motivation and Being guilt tripped and kind of hit in the face with the facts worked for them.
00:22:04.160 --> 00:22:06.079
But they're not in the majority.
00:22:06.319 --> 00:22:13.279
It might work for some, but most people are not looking for some abrupt and forceful reality check.
00:22:13.440 --> 00:22:18.480
So if if this is right, then why do people believe that these hardline tactics are so productive?
00:22:18.559 --> 00:22:20.160
Why what explains that then?
00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:27.440
Well, first, I think they're very correct in being motivated by the awful urgency of animal abuse.
00:22:27.680 --> 00:22:29.440
It's unfolding every minute.
00:22:29.680 --> 00:22:36.799
But the trouble is the move from it's urgent to I should therefore act instinctively and very, very quickly.
00:22:37.039 --> 00:22:46.319
That doesn't work when the problem is created and defended by a complex social system of laws and institutions and cultural moral beliefs.
00:22:46.559 --> 00:22:52.960
And second, the awful situation to which activists respond kind of creates emotions in the campaigner.
00:22:53.359 --> 00:22:55.440
They want to create a better world.
00:22:55.599 --> 00:23:11.440
And the negative emotion that they associate with injustice gets dissipated somewhat by giving one's audience an impassioned and forceful speech full of hard truths, or by getting lots of retweets on provocative posts.
00:23:12.000 --> 00:23:17.920
This feels better in the moment and provides activists, I think, with a sense of progress and of inspiration.
00:23:18.240 --> 00:23:20.000
But that doesn't mean it's effective.
00:23:20.240 --> 00:23:26.720
Our emotions aren't reliable guides to whether we're having the best impact in a complex world.
00:23:27.680 --> 00:23:33.839
Now let me kind of concede that I run the risk in highlighting these issues of making vegans seem unappealing, right?
00:23:33.920 --> 00:23:36.880
Of kind of contributing to the problem that I'm complaining about.
00:23:37.119 --> 00:23:42.960
So let me say that most vegans are very thoughtful and empathetic and interesting people, right?
00:23:43.039 --> 00:23:51.440
And I should flag vegans who do an incredible job in this respect, people like Romesh Rankinathan, the comedian, or Lewis Hamilton, the champion F1 driver.
00:23:51.599 --> 00:23:57.599
But that's not the idea a lot of people might get because of the shop window laid out by a kind of minority.
00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:00.000
Now, I admit I could be wrong here.
00:24:00.160 --> 00:24:06.160
I admit that the psychology of activism is not my specialist area because I'm not a psychologist.
00:24:06.400 --> 00:24:18.960
But it does seem to be a kind of powerful line of thought that if you want to convince someone to join you, most people need social inclusion, friendliness, an attractive presentation of your camp to be won over.
00:24:19.599 --> 00:24:25.920
Most people, if they feel attacked, if they feel called out, are likely to want to find some flaw in your camp.
00:24:26.079 --> 00:24:29.200
They're likely to want to decide that they don't want to be like you.
00:24:29.440 --> 00:24:38.720
They're likely to spot and latch onto, or even kind of make up, some element of hypocrisy that apparently writes you off.
00:24:39.039 --> 00:24:44.240
And then their decision is settled by the emotions, not by the rational merits of the case at hand.
00:24:44.640 --> 00:24:47.920
Because like it or not, we're animals, we're social animals.
00:24:48.799 --> 00:24:50.960
As vegans, you know, recognize.
00:24:51.200 --> 00:24:54.880
We can be driven by emotions pretty strongly.
00:24:55.119 --> 00:25:02.640
And then it seems to be the responsibility of the activist to do things that might generate actual change, not just to hit and hope.
00:25:03.599 --> 00:25:07.279
And so it becomes a moral issue how we act as activists.
00:25:07.440 --> 00:25:15.599
And it might be that the very beings we're trying to help have a claim against our using bad strategies or no strategies at all.
00:25:15.839 --> 00:25:22.240
Because they're the ones who lose out when things go badly or opportunities are missed.
00:25:23.920 --> 00:25:29.759
But let me let me kind of recognise that there's an objection to my argument that emerges at this point.
00:25:30.559 --> 00:25:37.519
I've assumed there's no obligation to be an activist at all, if and because there's a sacrifice that's involved that's significant.
00:25:38.079 --> 00:25:49.519
But can't the less strategic, more feeling-based activist invoke a similar line of argument as to why they're not willing to go through the work of developing a good theory of change?
00:25:49.759 --> 00:26:00.559
They can say if the non-activist can play the effort card in explaining why they're not an activist, then I can play the effort card in explaining why I'm not some sort of strategizing activist.
00:26:00.799 --> 00:26:15.839
Right, not everyone has the headspace or the resources to prepare for some sort of technically informed meeting with state officials, but I do just about have the energy to fly the flag, to wear the badge, to go to the sit-in, to shout from the rooftops.
00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:27.440
And this is partly because these forceful expressions of community spirit give me energy, and I don't have the energy to develop a kind of flow chart theory of change or whatever.
00:26:28.079 --> 00:26:34.640
So, in reply, I'm not saying people should do more than they're capable of doing.
00:26:34.799 --> 00:26:45.920
But the point is, bracketing the cases where someone's really, really unable to do more, many people are able to do a better job without putting a whole load more effort in.
00:26:46.640 --> 00:26:58.240
People can use empathy and consult free materials from people like Tobias, who I'll interview later, and put more thought into their activism to make it a lot better.
00:26:58.799 --> 00:27:05.039
And I think there's nothing about strategizing that means that we can't find community and catharsis.
00:27:05.839 --> 00:27:15.599
Indeed, maybe in the medium or longer term, activists who have more success in their campaigning because of strategy actually have stronger and more durable community.
00:27:16.400 --> 00:27:30.079
But if we have to choose between catharsis and outcomes for the humans or animals for whom we fight, then the choice as activists seems clear because it's not about us.
00:27:31.680 --> 00:27:34.799
Uh apart from, of course, when it is about us.
00:27:34.880 --> 00:27:44.720
And I kind of want to bracket the case of what we might call kind of self-activism here or self-representation when someone's fighting for themselves and their own rights.
00:27:44.880 --> 00:27:47.039
And here I think it might be different.
00:27:47.119 --> 00:28:02.480
And the decision to reject careful strategy might be a more personal decision, and I think people might be more willing to understand why someone is very angry and not very strategic about their own representation for their own rights.
00:28:02.640 --> 00:28:13.759
But I'm talking about cases like most climate activists and all vegans who are in part or in whole defending other people and other beings and their rights.
00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:21.920
So before I bring in Tobias and have the chat with him, one final objection to my argument is kind of probably worth noting.
00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:23.839
And this is the objection.
00:28:24.240 --> 00:28:37.519
How dare you will criticize us so-called ineffective activists when there are billions of people sitting on their ass on the sofa doing nothing for any cause whatsoever, right?
00:28:37.680 --> 00:28:39.039
How is this on us?
00:28:39.200 --> 00:28:41.519
How can you say that we're on the hook?
00:28:43.039 --> 00:28:54.480
So, in reply, maybe we should concede after all that people who don't do any work of any kind towards making the world better, but who have the resources to do so are on the hook as well.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:29:03.039
So if we take the whole group of people who don't do activism, don't give to charity and so on, some of them have very good reasons not to do that.
00:29:03.200 --> 00:29:04.880
So that seems morally fine.
00:29:05.119 --> 00:29:09.039
And those who don't have good reason, it does seem that they're on the hook too.
00:29:09.200 --> 00:29:15.759
But still, to be off the hook, good intentions and putting hours in as an activist might not be enough.
00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:28.000
I guess because we can realise that it's it's difficult to make change and that we do often have a responsibility to actually make change as far as we can or to contribute to that as far as we can.
00:29:28.079 --> 00:29:30.480
And that does seem to take strategy.
00:29:32.960 --> 00:29:34.880
Okay, so part three of three.
00:29:35.039 --> 00:29:41.920
If we want to have a more effective kind of campaigning, how can we be productive activists, right?
00:29:42.079 --> 00:29:49.200
How can we be activists who change the world, or who at least have the best chance of changing part of the world?
00:29:49.920 --> 00:30:01.279
So for this question, I went to Tobias Linert, who's the author of the 2017 book How to Create a Vegan World, a Pragmatic Approach, which has been translated into 14 different languages.
00:30:01.599 --> 00:30:09.839
Tobias thinks about strategy and helps people, companies, NGOs, universities to develop better strategies for change.
00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:20.160
And he's also the co-founder of ProVeg International, a charitable body that aims to reduce the consumption of animal products worldwide by 50% by 2040.
00:30:20.400 --> 00:30:23.039
So yeah, uh, thanks very much, Tobias, for joining me.
00:30:23.200 --> 00:30:35.200
Um firstly, I wanted to ask about like what some general principles are that someone can turn to if they want to be a strategic activist, kind of no matter their cause area.
00:30:36.160 --> 00:30:52.000
Yeah, if you talk about strategic a strategic attitude in general, I would say that is about um yeah, effectiveness and pragmatism and doing things that work rather than doing the things that you think you should do because there's rules that say you should do it like that, right?
00:30:52.559 --> 00:31:12.160
Um so um, for instance, um you could be activist about a certain behavior or uh yeah, some certain change in society, and you could demonstrate that behavior very much yourself um to a fault in a way.
00:31:12.400 --> 00:31:22.960
So for instance, I would say that uh trying to be consistent across the board in terms of the behavior that's desirable to you um is not always a good thing.
00:31:23.119 --> 00:31:52.559
So, for instance, if you say, say you're a climate activist and you say, like, I'm never gonna fly because I I I think flying is uh is too damaging for the environment, but then if you would miss out on opportunities to do real good by flying, so you maybe go to a conference and you have a give an effective talk there, or you get inspired by being around those people and at that conference, um then I would say, yeah, don't don't prioritize that principle over the effect um your action might have.
00:31:52.799 --> 00:31:54.240
So that is that is one thing.
00:31:54.480 --> 00:32:05.119
Another thing would be to like um ask the things that you know are reasonable and doable rather than asking the things that are your ideal.
00:32:05.359 --> 00:32:15.039
So those are some just ideas of of of how you might approach being um yeah, effective or pragmatic as a change maker.
00:32:16.400 --> 00:32:27.200
One tip or suggestion or principle that you can always apply is is is what I call uh yanya, which is called, which which means you are not your audience, yanya.
00:32:27.599 --> 00:32:43.839
Um and um I think it's it's always really important to imagine what your audience is like, who it is, what they want, what their interests are, and put yourself in their shoes and not assume that they want the same as you.
00:32:44.000 --> 00:33:07.599
And that will already be um a very good tool to um to lead you in a more strategic direction because we're always like likely or prone to um yeah, spew out what we want ourselves, what our ideals are, what our ideals for or our arguments for action or for behavior change are, and we will project towards other people.
00:33:07.759 --> 00:33:20.720
Now, if we see that these other people are not like us in many ways, um, and we can approach things from their end, from their side, then that's already a very good basis for for pragmatism and compromises, I think.
00:33:20.960 --> 00:33:21.440
Mm-hmm.
00:33:22.880 --> 00:33:29.519
What does it's a very general question, but like from you, you know, I know I know you look at a lot of data on theory of change.
00:33:29.759 --> 00:33:30.640
What does that tell us?
00:33:30.799 --> 00:33:35.920
Does it tell us anything interesting beyond just what seems intuitive about how to make change?
00:33:36.319 --> 00:33:36.799
Yeah.
00:33:37.039 --> 00:33:40.160
Um, so we don't have, I would say, in enough data.
00:33:40.319 --> 00:33:43.680
We don't have enough data but theories, interventions that work.
00:33:44.160 --> 00:33:56.079
Uh, what I think I can confidently say is that there is more evidence pointing in the direction of more moderate asks that work, more um uh less radical messaging.
00:33:56.240 --> 00:34:18.320
For instance, in the case of uh my field veganism, um, if you say go vegan or otherwise you're a murderer, um, this kind of like absolutist um uh dialogue, and I'm putting it a bit extreme now, um, but um this will will more often, according to research, alienate people um if if you use guilt and and and shame.
00:34:18.480 --> 00:34:30.000
That might work in some some cases, but more often it seems to alienate people, and so we know that from research, and we can we can look at the research and and and consequently decide what approach is the best.
00:34:30.079 --> 00:34:44.239
And and here it's like really uh important to emphasize that like pragmatism here is a matter of choosing what you think uh from research or whatever works the best and not choosing on the basis of oh this fits me better.
00:34:44.480 --> 00:34:47.679
So for or this is like what I naturally lean to.
00:34:47.760 --> 00:34:49.840
Like, for instance, you mentioned hunters.
00:34:50.000 --> 00:34:54.079
Uh I with hunters I have a big uh problem being pragmatic.
00:34:54.159 --> 00:35:03.360
Like if I encounter a hunter who is shooting at that moment in the fields right next to me, I will get angry um and I will shout at him.
00:35:03.599 --> 00:35:06.880
And um that is not the most pragmatic thing to do.
00:35:07.039 --> 00:35:16.079
That is just something I at that moment I I almost can't control, but um almost a choice not to be pragmatic and to ignore the research, etc.
00:35:16.400 --> 00:35:30.159
So what I want to say here is like either you you agree with yourself that you're gonna go for what you think is most effective, or you're gonna say um intentionally or not, no, I'm gonna ignore this because this is a better fit for me.
00:35:30.400 --> 00:35:36.000
I don't think this is always wrong or this is always unavoidable, like in my case with the hunters.
00:35:36.159 --> 00:35:39.360
Um but um it's good to be aware of that at least.
00:35:40.400 --> 00:35:44.000
I must say it's very brave to start with someone with a lethal, a lethal weapon.
00:35:44.159 --> 00:36:01.760
Um but okay, and then just imagining a listener who's sort of maybe a bit new to the idea of being strategic, who's willing to to who's sympathetic to the idea, but is kind of concerned about uh compromising their values too much or kind of becoming involved in what they see as sort of dirty work.
00:36:02.719 --> 00:36:22.639
What are some types of some kind of modes of being pragmatic that uh are less controversial and that everyone should be willing to kind of give a go to, even if they want to kind of set aside being being highly, highly, highly strategizing all the way to kind of yeah, potentially saying things I don't agree with or something?
00:36:22.960 --> 00:36:46.239
Yeah, for first of all, if you talk about like the fear of compromising your values, um I would say that like for instance when I say something about meat reduction rather than about veganism, some other people might say you're compromising because yeah, you're about eliminating animal consumption and animal production, so you can't talk about reduction.
00:36:46.320 --> 00:36:48.880
Uh you can't talk about these incremental steps.
00:36:49.199 --> 00:36:57.840
But I'm thinking that like if I believe this is more impactful, then I'm not compromising because I'm doing it for the animal.
00:36:57.920 --> 00:37:08.239
So I'm trying always, I think another way of being pragmatic is to look at to look at it from the point of the the victims and look at what the pig that is locked up would want.
00:37:08.480 --> 00:37:13.760
And uh he or she would want me to be effective, they would not want me to be a purist.
00:37:13.840 --> 00:37:18.719
Um they would want me to do whatever gets them out of the cage, right?
00:37:19.039 --> 00:37:23.679
So um I think that's that that is uh another way of looking at it.
00:37:23.920 --> 00:37:43.760
I always tell people, activists in my area, um, who will tell me, like, oh, look, you can't compromise like this because anti-slavery abolitionists would also not have said, like, let's abuse the slaves or let's only have slaves on Monday or whatever, just like the Meatless Monday campaign says you shouldn't eat uh meat on Monday.
00:37:43.920 --> 00:38:05.760
But the fact is, um, these anti-slavery abolitionists also were very pragmatic and they had uh asks or interventions that were exactly about reduction of harm and incremental change rather than saying uh look, uh we have to abolish slavery today uh rather than tomorrow, even though they believed that.
00:38:05.920 --> 00:38:23.440
But they too they started by um asking things, having asks demands about the the the health of the British sailors on the ship rather than the enslaved people, or they were talking about uh the circumstances in which these enslaved people were on the boats.
00:38:23.679 --> 00:38:35.360
So uh that is very, very parallel to what in my movement of animal welfare and animal rights, uh many organizations ask, which is uh better, higher welfare for animals.
00:38:35.599 --> 00:38:41.920
Of course, you always have to keep in mind that there might be something like greenwashing or humane washing or or whatever.
00:38:42.239 --> 00:38:50.480
So um yeah, we we cannot like be happy with with changes that are too small in in the case you're talking about institution or whatever.
00:38:50.559 --> 00:38:50.639
Yeah.
00:38:50.960 --> 00:38:59.280
Where the greenwash greenwashing and so on is like uh kind of just surface level, meaningless changes to try and get reputational enhancements for a company or whatever.
00:38:59.519 --> 00:38:59.760
Exactly.
00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:02.719
That's what you yes, yeah, to distract from the real issues, etc.
00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:06.320
So that that would obviously be not pragmatic, not effective, and damaging.
00:39:06.400 --> 00:39:06.559
Yeah.
00:39:07.199 --> 00:39:19.199
So one one of the criteria I guess you have for like how how should I actually approach being pragmatic is like, I think, if I understand correctly, the degree to which most people already agree with your view.
00:39:19.360 --> 00:39:23.119
So like how how to what extent has the argument already been won in public?
00:39:23.280 --> 00:39:32.559
So can you talk about how whether a a view is is is dominant or is popular or is fringe affects how we should be pragmatic?
00:39:33.039 --> 00:39:44.559
Yeah, I think that um the public support, a certain intervention, a certain ask, a certain message has will determine how confrontational, et cetera, you can be with it.
00:39:44.719 --> 00:39:50.719
Like, for instance, if you want to protect cats, you can go a lot further than when you want to protect chickens, right?
00:39:51.039 --> 00:39:54.000
Um people will accept a lot more of you.
00:39:54.239 --> 00:40:11.599
Um I think that um there is quite a bit of an overlap for me between being pragmatic and being a good kind communicator and have good like palatable messaging, um, and and and using empathy and and and and kindness.
00:40:12.079 --> 00:40:19.199
And um I think that is in so many ways, in so many places appropriate.
00:40:19.360 --> 00:40:25.119
And uh, like you said, people might think that they're like betraying their values if they are like that.
00:40:25.360 --> 00:40:39.840
I always give the example of um or of Daryl Davis, who is um an activist, an anti-racism activist, uh, black man, um, and he uh befriended Ku Klux Klan people.
00:40:40.159 --> 00:40:47.519
Um and the idealist or the the the critic of this might say, like, yeah, we should not talk to these people, they're horrible.
00:40:47.599 --> 00:40:52.639
We should just completely ignore them and and boycott them and not have anything to do with them.
00:40:52.880 --> 00:41:01.519
But by having relationships with these people, he was able to convince hundreds of them to actually drop their ideology and to leave the clan.
00:41:01.760 --> 00:41:11.039
So he was effective by being very kind to people that um yeah, other people said you you have no business talking to.
00:41:13.360 --> 00:41:13.840
Great.
00:41:14.079 --> 00:41:21.199
Um I I don't think I have any more questions, but um yeah, is there anything you wanted to add at all?
00:41:21.519 --> 00:41:31.119
Yeah, maybe I can say like like um one one one easy way, especially for for animal activists, to um uh summarize what pragmatism is about.
00:41:31.440 --> 00:41:37.280
The question is is not um am I right or is this my truth, but um does this work?
00:41:37.519 --> 00:41:44.639
So it's not about like being right, it's not about like like um spreading your big truth with a big T to people.
00:41:44.800 --> 00:42:18.719
And I'm not again saying that uh people should lie, but there is uh often uh like um proneness of people to like speak their mind and to say like I have to like really say it the way it is and I have to tell them the truth, and that is more like almost more like an ego thing sometimes, like like at least I didn't lie and I was brave and I spoke the truth, and and that all of that is is is of secondary importance to uh how did your message arrive with the the the audience you intended for and did it do something among them?
00:42:18.880 --> 00:42:30.159
And and and this blatant, very vocal truth maybe can do something sometimes with some people, um, but often like um people need to hear it in a little bit of a softer way.
00:42:30.320 --> 00:42:41.599
So there is no this is maybe important to say, I think that that maybe the the the key to pragmatism is adaptiveness and and you know not have any fixed way to go about things.
00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:46.960
Um because if you have a fixed way, then you're almost uh dogmatic, I would say.
00:42:47.199 --> 00:42:58.559
So um, and this also means that like being more aggressive or being more direct or whatever can be the best way and can be the most effective way in some cases, but in other cases it will not be.
00:42:58.639 --> 00:43:07.760
And so the the ability to like distinguish between those and to to shift from one approach to the other, that flexibility is is I think the essence of being pregnant.
00:43:10.880 --> 00:43:13.679
So thank you so much for listening to this podcast.
00:43:13.840 --> 00:43:17.840
If you want to help me out and stay connected, please do hit that follow button.
00:43:17.920 --> 00:43:27.280
It really is appreciated and helps me on my journey to bring rigorous but entertaining philosophy to more people in a bid to improve the world.
00:43:27.519 --> 00:43:34.400
And you can also get in touch or fill in the survey in the show notes to give me some feedback on how I can improve this podcast.
00:43:34.559 --> 00:43:42.960
Do check out similar past episodes on raising kids vegan, on animal and human rights, and on the idea of votes for children.
00:43:43.199 --> 00:43:47.119
And see you next time for more surprising ethics.
