|
>I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition. Well, there's a 40+ year history of such demonstrations, going back to before May '68 -- in France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, etc, that's been recorded historically, and many consider an important tool against a passive democracy were people merely vote every 4 years. >Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period. (1) In practice tradition is the strongest force that makes something morally right: one finds "morally right" what their era considers as morally right, which in turn is what it has been passed on and taught as morally right (aka tradition). Apart from that, there are some kind of universal principles we all more or less agree to (no killing etc), but you'd be surprised how many people would consider those things morally OK to violate when their era finds it OK for political, patriotic etc reasons. But I didn't say it's "morally right" -- but that it's a tradition, and it has been proven fruitful in the past in keeping those in power at check, at least somewhat. (2) Sure, but it's not like only peaceful protests are OK. Some of the more effective protests, like the May 68 rights that forever changed the ethics of modern Europe, were not "peaceful" in that sense. |
I now see that you in fact did not make the case that this tradition involving property damage is morally right (in the above sense). I must have read too much into your comment. Apologies.
(2) OK, then we are in agreement here. However, the only reason I brought up the arson in the first place was because the original parent specifically characterized the protests as "peaceful".