Ethics & Environmentalism

Martin Luther King Jr. argued that direct action is necessary to confront systems that violate moral law, degrade human personality, and perpetuate systemic injustice. Nonviolence requires moral courage and aims to reconcile rather than alienate. His framework influenced contemporary protest movements by emphasizing that some laws are unjust and must be resisted through nonviolent methods. According to King, unjust laws include those that “are out of harmony with the moral law,” “degrade human personality,” or are inflicted by a majority on a minority without fair representation (King, pp. 1-2, 1963).
Eco-vandalism campaigns, such as the On2Ottawa protest at the Canadian National Gallery, claim to target unjust climate policies that allow unsustainable emissions and environmental degradation. These policies can be viewed as unjust under King’s criteria because they harm both present and future generations. Philosopher John Nolt, in Environmental Ethics for the Long Term (2015), argues that long-term ethical considerations are essential for understanding humanity’s responsibility to distant future people. Nolt emphasizes that at larger scales—such as geological or evolutionary chronology—the average human lifespan becomes insignificant, and ethical reasoning must rely on empirical data, logical inference, and scientific models to project the consequences of present actions (Nolt, p. 1, 2015).

Through King’s framework and Nolt’s long-term anthropocentric ethics (the theory of our environmental responsibility to distant future people), policies allowing the continued emission of pollutants and deforestation violate the moral law (Nolt, p. 93, 2015). For example, laws permitting unsustainable resource extraction, such as tree-cutting or industrial pollution, meet King’s criteria for unjust laws. These policies are “out of harmony with the moral law” and “degrade human personality” by jeopardizing the well-being of future generations. Western societies are not structured to count most human beings as equals because they overlook the great majority of future people who will exist and the responsibility of addressing the consequences of global warming on them (Nolt, pp. 93-94, 2015).

Nolt further emphasizes the utilitarian principle of minimizing harm, which is important for long-term environmental ethics. With clear empirical evidence, Nolt points out that disrupting Earth’s climate causes large-scale suffering and death over the coming centuries (Nolt, p. 94, 2015). This raises the philosophical question of whether distant future people matter less or have less moral status than present-day individuals. Simplified utilitarian calculus would suggest that a growing population of future individuals who share the same moral status would far outweigh the needs of present generations. Policies with long-term consequences, such as climate inaction, inherently harm future populations.

According to Nolt, the most cited definition of sustainability from the 1987 Our Common Future report requires that ” development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Nolt, p. 119, 2015). Contemporary climate policies fail to meet this requirement, as they neither fully address present-day needs nor protect the capacity of future generations to thrive. Western societies, structured around short-term economic priorities, often overlook the moral obligation to future persons, further entrenching systemic harm. It may even be impossible to restructure present-day laws and policies to meet the demands of a fully sustainable, non-pollutant future because society has already progressed too far within unsustainable systems and built environment.

In the present, it is evident that climate change also aligns with King’s criterion that unjust laws are imposed by a majority on a minority without representation. Wealthy nations and corporations, which are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, disproportionately harm low-income communities and marginalized groups. These groups have minimal influence over climate policies yet bear the greatest burdens and impact of environmental degradation (Nolt, pp. 82-87, 2015). Low-lying nations like Tuvalu and Bangladesh face catastrophic impacts such as rising sea levels, despite contributing minimally to global emissions. Similarly, Indigenous peoples, who possess deep knowledge of sustainable environmental practices, are frequently excluded from climate policy decisions while suffering significant harm from industrial projects like pipelines (Nolt, pp. 82-87). According to Nolt, scientist predict these conditions will only worsen with time, further exacerbating harm to future generations (Nolt, p. 119, 2015)