EP27: Should We Use Violence To Protect Animals? (On Ivar Hardman’s “In Defence of Direct Action”)

In this episode, we explore a very provocative argument in contemporary animal ethics: the moral defense of violent direct action to protect animals. The pseudonymous philosopher Ivar Hardman challenges both mainstream liberal ethics and the cautious pacifism of figures like Peter Singer and Tom Regan. His essay, “In Defense of Direct Action”, argues that it is prima facie morally permissible, in some cases even required, for individuals to use coercion, including violence and property destruction, to prevent the serious and wrongful harm of animals.

Drawing on common sense morality, Hardman builds a case for treating militant animal rights activists not as moral outliers, but as people following ordinary moral principles to their logical conclusion. We explore the paper’s key claims, how it situates itself against animal ethics orthodoxy, and what it implies for the legitimacy of groups like the Animal Liberation Front.

If you want to offset your meat consumption (as mentioned by Ethan in the episode), check out FarmKind

Check out Stephan Kershnar’s controversial publication record (we mentioned at the end of the episode). https://philpeople.org/profiles/stephen-kershnar

The post EP27: Should We Use Violence To Protect Animals? (On Ivar Hardman’s “In Defence of Direct Action”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.