Question

Some environmentalists, tired of waiting for ‘green economics’ to catch up with society at large, have adopted their own strategies for tipping the financial calculation in favour of the land. In the forest surrounding Vancouver, where trees are being felled for paper to print philosophy books, groups have used metal spikes hidden in trees to prevent chainsaws from operating safely, pushing up the cost of harvesting trees. In Phoenix, Arizona, where mountain nature reserves have been encroached on by new houses, hooded vigilantes have burnt down the new residences. The arsonists, according to the local paper, pray before they burn down a house that no one will get hurt, thinking primarily of the firefighters; the new houses are burned while still empty. “We don’t pray for ourselves not to get caught – that’s God’s will,” one is quoted as saying.
As per the activists, all aforementioned activities seem clearly very principled. But is it ethical?

• A. Yes, arsonists are right.
• B. No, they have no justification for damaging other people’s property.
• C. No, as it is not taken up in a peaceful manner.
• D. No, as the activities are not carried out in a legal manner.
• E. Stop thinking about ethics altogether as ethical issues are difficult to resolve.

Hint:

In ethics-based questions, always check whether the means are justified, not only the ends. A good cause cannot justify harmful or destructive actions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Identify the context.
The passage explains how frustrated environmental activists resorted to extreme measures such as spiking trees, burning houses, and causing financial losses. Their justification was that they were acting in the name of environmental protection.
Step 2: Define the ethical issue.
The question is whether these destructive activities are ethical. Ethics requires judging not just intentions but also the fairness and justification of actions. Damaging property or endangering people cannot be justified as ethical, even if the cause is noble.
Step 3: Evaluate the options.
- Option A supports arsonists, which is unethical because it approves destruction of property without valid justification.
- Option B is correct because damaging other people’s property has no ethical justification, regardless of environmental goals.
- Option C gives the wrong reasoning. Not all peaceful activities are automatically ethical. Ethics depends on justification, not just peace.
- Option D focuses on legality, but legality and ethics are not the same. Something legal may still be unethical, and vice versa. Hence it is not the best answer.
- Option E avoids the problem altogether and is too extreme, so it cannot be accepted.
Step 4: Conclude.
The best answer is Option B, because ethics does not permit causing harm to others’ property or safety, even for a seemingly noble cause. \[ \boxed{\text{Option B – They have no justification for damaging other people’s property.}} \]