ARE ACTIVISTS WHO INCONVENIENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC JUSTIFIED?

Activists who inconvenience the general public are justifiable in order to further their causes. This is because it is only right that the general public should suffer for what they have done, and furthermore the general public has no choice but to accept this as a necessary evil. It would be wrong of us not to allow activists to inconvenience the general public if it helps them achieve their goals. We must make allowances for people's rights even when they do something we don't like, and let them get away with things that are bad for society so long as it benefits them. The ends justify the means.

source

The above statement can be shown by the following reasoning:
(1) If you inconvenience someone, then you are inconveniencing them. (2) You are inconveniencing them because they did something which was bad for society. (3) Therefore, what they did was bad for society. (4) It is therefore justified to inconvenience them.

This argument may seem circular at first glance, but it isn't really. The second premise simply states that whatever the person does, it is still bad for society. If they had not done anything wrong, there would be no reason to inconvenience them. Furthermore, the conclusion follows from the premises because the actions of the individual are always justified by their intentions, and if they intend to do something good for society, then it is right to let them get away with doing it.

The first premise is also circular, but again, it isn't. The point here is that if you don't inconvenience someone, then you're allowing them to continue doing something bad for society. Therefore, if you want to stop them from continuing to do it, then you need to inconvenience them.

To summarise, we should tolerate people inconveniencing others as long as it benefits society. Bothering the general public to help further their causes is justifiable, and the fact that the general public might have to put up with some inconvenience is irrelevant. Failing to do so would mean letting the people who caused the problem off too easily, and this would be unfair on everyone else. For example, if a group of activists disrupted your day-to-day life to help save the environment, then it would be unjust for you to complain about the disruption because they were trying to protect the planet.

In addition, it is worth noting that this doesn't apply to all forms of inconvenience. There are some things which are unacceptable, such as being mugged or having your home broken into. However, this is not the case when it comes to activists inconveniencing the general public. If they cause enough inconvenience to achieve their aims, then it is right for them to get away with it.

It is also important to remember that there are different degrees of inconvenience. If an activist makes it difficult for you to go shopping or visit friends, then that is annoying, but it is not unreasonable. If they prevent you from going to work, then that is much more serious, but this is still acceptable. In other words, the degree of inconvenience is relative to the level of achievement.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that this applies to both the activists and the general public. For example, if a group of activists prevented you from using the train to get to work, then you would feel annoyed, but it would not be reasonable for you to take this out on them. Likewise, if you wanted to go to the shops, but the protesters blocked your way, then you would be inconvenienced, but it wouldn't be reasonable to blame them.

As you can see, this is a very simple argument, but it clearly shows why activists who inconvenience the general public are justifiable. They are causing you trouble, but they are doing it for a good reason, and so it is right for you to put up with the inconvenience.