1. Jenny Mace
MSc Animal Welfare Science, Ethics & Law
J.Mace.16@unimail.winchester.ac.uk

2. Animal terrorism: Is it ever virtuous?
Knight (2016) discusses the USA’s ratification of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
(AETA) in 2006. This act deems any interstate behaviour as animal enterprise
terrorism that causes damage to an organisation using animals (or the organisation’s
staff, staff family members or clients). This can be in the form of property or
economic damage, trespassing, causing serious injury or incitement or threat thereof
(AETA, 2006). Consequently, animal advocacy activities can be associated with
terrorism, and as such, can be known as animal terrorism (AT). Law-abidance is
often considered as virtuous (Edmundson, 2006), but could a breach of this law still
be viewed as virtuous considering the cause and intentions of the perpetrators? This
essay uses a neo-Aristotelian form of virtue theory (VT) to assess the ethical status
of the actions by animal activists Lang and Johnson who, in 2014, were prosecuted
under the AETA for the theft and release of approximately 2000 mink otherwise
destined to be sold to fur manufacturers (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2014).
Virtue theory
The origin of VT can be traced to Aristotle’s Nicomachen Ethics (Aristotle, 2001 [340
BCE]). As an agent-focused theory, VT assesses ethicality by considering how a
virtuous person would act. Aristotle defined a virtue as the golden mean of two
extremes; for example, courage is the golden mean between the excess of
foolishness and deficiency of cowardice. He considered eudaimonia (human
flourishing) to be the ultimate goal of human life and attained through ethos (habit or
practice) of the virtues (Chappell, 2015). Contemporary virtue theorists (e.g.,
Anscombe, 1958; Slote, 1992) often extend Aristotle’s lists of virtues to include any
quality that fosters eudaimonia; that is, in short, a trait beneficial to the functioning of

3. both the individual and society (for a detailed account on the method used in this
essay to arrive at virtuous traits, see Hursthouse, 1999).
Lang and Johnson’s actions as virtuous
To execute their actions, Lang and Johnson required courage to overcome fear of
breaking the law and resulting punishment; a sufficient sense of justice to wish to
release the mink and save them from their fate of becoming human fashion
garments; and proper ambition to conceive of and carry out such an idea. These
traits could be considered eudaimonic as they support individual and societal life
(Hursthouse, 1999; Chappell, 2015). They are also amongst Aristotle’s (2001 [340
BCE]) twelve moral virtues.
VT encourages individuals to seek guidance from moral superiors to determine the
aretaic approach to a situation (Hursthouse, 1999). Lang and Johnson’s actions
appear congruent with that of past social reformers including Martin Luther King Jr.
and Gandhi, who preached non-violent direct action as a means of galvanising social
change and are today considered as moral leaders (Cha, 2013). So, because the
qualities required for Lang and Johnson’s actions are deemed virtuous, and because
their actions arguably mirror the teachings of greatly respected moral leaders, VT
could be said to deem this example of AT as virtuous. However, there are more
ways in which this is not the case.
Lang and Johnson’s actions as unvirtuous
Aristotle considered reasoning unique to humans, seeing it as the ultimate tool
through which the virtues are arrived at (Hursthouse, 1999). Arguably, Lang and
Johnson deliberated inadequately over their plan. CBS Chicago (2014) reported that

4. many of the released mink were killed by traffic or that they simply could not cope
with living independently. Lang and Johnson also gained substantial negative
publicity (e.g., TheBlaze, 2014), which could harm the reputation of animal
advocacy. Thus, if their main reasoning was to rescue the mink or gain publicity for
longer-term change, it was ineffective. This suggests a lack of patience for slower
but more effective methods of social change including petitions, awareness-raising
campaigns, demonstrations, lobbying and potentially other forms of illegal direct
action. According to Hursthouse (1999), patience is another eudaimonic trait
because it is beneficial for the exhibitor and required for optimal functioning of
society.
Lang and Johnson debatably lacked some of the ‘proper means to the proper ends
desired by moral virtue’ (Aristotle, 2001 [340 BCE]; p.931); that is, they were
unvirtuous in their disposition and lacked the phronesis (practical wisdom) required
to act virtuously (Hursthouse, 1999). Under this interpretation, VT is not supportive of
so-called AT.
Civil disobedience and personal violence
As Knight (2016) points out, an act such as the AETA, that conflicts with the USA’s
First Amendment is automatically void. This means peaceful picketing, leafleting and
other legal forms of protest should not be classed as terrorism. However, interstate
civil disobedience could be classed as AT under the AETA. It is worth noting that
effective non-violent civil disobedience on behalf of animal advocacy could be
aligned with VT; thus in such instances, VT would be classifying AT as virtuous.
Conversely, other examples of AT involving violence (i.e., physical or psychological
harm) or incitements and threats thereof, would not be seen as aligned with VT and

5. consequently not deemed as virtuous (e.g., the so-called Shac-7 animal activists
who sent threats to the homes of staff involved with Huntingdon Life Sciences;
Center for Constituional Rights, 2007). Carhart (2009) clarifies how violence is seen
as ineffective for the cause and as lacking in reason; is not modelled by figures of
virtue; is fuelled by vices and undesirable emotion such as irascibility (Aristotle, 2001
[340 BCE]); and is ultimately not eudaimonic.
Conclusion
History shows that positive change in society often only comes to fruition as a result
of courageous law-breakers. These revolutionaries are often seen in a negative light
by society at the time; however, future generations across the world view them as
models of virtue (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., Emily Pankhurst and Gandhi; Cha,
2013). Similarly, the current AETA may deem some animal activists as animal
terrorists and strive to punish and silence them when they may be the virtuous
figures of the future. As discussed, this does not automatically justify any law-
breaking actions in the name of animal protection; however, it is worth remembering
Kennedy’s (1962 [online]) thoughts: ‘If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you
make violent revolution inevitable’.
VT is but one theory that can be used to assess the ethical status of AT. Whilst
substantial criticism of VT concerns its lack of precision (e.g., Das, 2015), this may
be exactly what constitutes its strength. Morality, for a virtue theorist, is a
developmental journey encouraging radical introspection, self-awareness and
responsibility rather than a quick fix to a dilemma or external labelling of good and
bad (Schafer-lander, 2013).

6. References
 Us Government (2006). Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Available at:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3880/text [accessed 03 Dec.
2016].
 Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. The Journal of the
Royal Institute of Philosophy. 33 (124). 1-19.
 Aristotle, (translation by W.D. Ross; 2001 [340 BCE]). Nicomachean Ethics. In
McKeon, R. (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.
935-1126.
 Carhart, R. (2009). Lyceum. 11 (1). Available at:
http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/126 [accessed 07 Dec. 2016].
 CBS Chicago (2014). Feds: Activists released 2,000 mink from fur farm in
Morris. 10 Jul. 2014. Available at:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/feds-activists-released-2000-mink-
from-fur-farm-in-morris/ [accessed 06 Dec. 2016].
 Center for Constitutional Rights (2007). U.S. v Shac 7. Available at:
https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/us-v-shac-7 [accessed 05
Dec. 2016].
 Center for Constitutional Rights (2014). United States v. Johnson. Available
at: http://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/united-states-v-johnson#
[accessed 03 Dec. 2016].
 Cha, M.J. (2013). Ethical values and social change: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Jr. and Ahn Chang Ho. Korean Social Science Journal. 40 (2).
101-111.
 Chappell, S-G. (2015). Lists of the virtues. Ethics & Politics. 17 (2). 74-93.

7.  Das, R. (2015). Virtue ethics and right action: A critique. In: Besser-Jones, L.
and Slote, M. (eds.), Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge. 331-344.
 Edmundson, W.A. (2006). The virtue of law-abidance. Philosopher’s Imprint. 6
(4). Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-
idx?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0006.004 [accessed 03. Dec 2016].
 Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Kennedy, J.F. (1962). Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for
Progress. Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President’s Office
Files. Speech Files. 13 March 1962. Available at:
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-037-026.aspx
[accessed 07 Dec. 2016].
 Knight, A. (2016). Semester 1: Week 11. Available at:
http://recordings.eu.blindsidenetworks.com/winchester/bc5538340af8f35b2fbff
3e19deb47638b6b39a8-1480880958804/capture/ [accessed 06 Dec. 2016].
 Schafer-Landau, R. (ed.) (2013). Preface. In: Ethical Theory: An Anthology
(2nd
ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. xi.
 Slote, M. (1992). From Morality to Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.
 TheBlaze (2014). What two animal rights activists did involving mink got them
arrested for ‘animal enterprise terrorism’. Liz Climas. 11 July, 2014. Available
at: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/11/what-two-animal-rights-
activists-did-involving-mink-got-them-arrested-for-animal-enterprise-terrorism/
[accessed 06 Dec. 2016].