Protesting: Deontology or Hedonism?

There are many people today who are actively protesting in the name of various causes: more regulation, less regulation, a clean environment, responsible government, more jobs for average people and other things of varying relative importance. But why? Are all these people homeless? Are all these people choking on toxic fumes or being flooded by glacier water? Usually not, or not all. Many will claim it is their duty as citizens to express their opinion. And, in the current political system, protest is simply an extension of this expression. This would be related to the ideas of duty and deontology. But is it possible that people have a hidden yet stronger motivation to protest?

Pleasure is an excellent motivator. People can become addicted to the pleasure they get from all kinds of things: cigarettes, television, being hungry, eating...protesting? One of the arguments against the Occupy movement was that many people were protesting for the sake of protesting. The motivation for protesting was for the pleasure it procured the person, not because the causes(s) held any particular importance.

The problem with accusing someone of being hedonistic is that you can counter by putting into question the existence of deontology, in a way. It could be said that respecting ethics/morals, especially in such a public way, makes one feel good about oneself. This pleasure would then be the cause of the value attributed to the idea being followed. This cynical viewpoint could be applied even in the case of a martyr. It brings up a lot of questions (e.g.is it due to a psychological disorder in such a case? ) and could be considered a smokescreen for a concrete issue.

But is the existing paradigm completely free of distortions of logic? After the beginning of the Occupy movement, new expressions started being used to defend what was already in place: "job creators" "class warfare" (in its new form, see past entry) and "socialists". These have been used ubiquitously in so many contexts that it is astounding to me that the inconsistencies have not been pointed out more.

But why am I getting into what the media or the job creators have said in reaction? Well, it is a form of protest: they are using established channels to publicly advocate an idea.

One could also argue both sides are rationally interested because they could each stand to profit materially.

I hope this short, somewhat chaotic post helped get the brain juices moving a bit.