the sea shepherd conservation society

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a marine conservation organization that uses "direct action" to protect sealife.That direct action includes intentionally damaging ships that partake in mass fishing, whaling, and netting, among other sealife infractions. The organization was founded by Paul Watson, a former Greenpeace board member who disagreed with the organization's nonviolent approach. His desire to attack resulted in his separation from Greenpeace and his creation of the SSCS.

The SSCS's tactics are extreme, to say the least. Their mission is to "end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species" by using "innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas." So...they will literally attack your ship to the point of it becoming inoperable. One one hand, their tactics is admirable. They are tenacious in the same vein as the better-known PETA. They have slight credibility over PETA because they aren't harming individuals, but rather individuals' means of harming wildlife; PETA will just throw a bucket of blood on you. It's actually ironic (and it really is ironic, not just a coincidence) that their official title is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, when they harass and assault individuals. Pot, meet kettle.

This calls into question the ethics of direct action. Direct action is not always unlawful. Some forms of general activity are completely legal and ethically sound. There is nothing improper or wrong about the idea of a protest or a strike. The execution is relative. The SSCS, in my opinion, is not ethically sound in terms of their direct action tactics. It is unethical to harm someone and their property, for any reason. It isn't frowned upon to do so all the time, but I would still say it is unethical. It must certainly be unethical, then, to ram a ship into another ship in salute to the whales and the fishes. I said before that their actions are admirable; it is incredible that people would go through such lengths, albeit dangerous, because of something they believe in. The idea is admirable. The actual execution of said idea is a tad bit unhinged. This...



...is ridiculous. I understand the desire to provoke change, but there should be a line. I'm pretty sure there is a line, and I think the SSCS crosses it.