I'm personally not too comfortable with this. Is the grindadráp not a significant part of their culture? Of course, in most other cultures—including, presumably, those of almost all of us...
I'm personally not too comfortable with this. Is the grindadráp not a significant part of their culture? Of course, in most other cultures—including, presumably, those of almost all of us here—such an act is considered by most common ethics to be abhorrent, and yet I don't really personally think that we should be striving to an ethical homogeny across the world like this. I feel more for the Islanders worried that a deep part of their culture across lives is under threat than I feel for the tourists passing by in cruise liners.
While I would feel more for the Faroese over the endangerment of their culture over tourists visiting them, I'm not sure I feel more for the Faroese over the whales and dolphins themselves. Edit:...
While I would feel more for the Faroese over the endangerment of their culture over tourists visiting them, I'm not sure I feel more for the Faroese over the whales and dolphins themselves.
Edit: for the Faroese' cultural concerns, if it were a matter of survival that'd be different, just to clarify /edit
Now I say this as somebody who does eat meat, but to my understanding the intelligence of especially dolphins is higher than many others in the animal kingdom.
As for ethical homogeny, I'm not sure I can agree with that position (or it's rejection, rather) to an axiomatic degree. Certainly I would like to strive for an eradication of, say, slavery and ethnic cleaning globally.
Having done that reductio ad Hitlerum, I might be willing to concede that some things might benefit of more leeway for a variety of reasons, and even this might, but it shouldn't be merely out of a principal rejection of moralistic reasoning.
Dolphins and whales are obviously smart, but plenty of animals that are regularly slaughtered and eaten in western cultures (e.g. cows) are too. I'm no vegan myself, but I think it's pretty...
Dolphins and whales are obviously smart, but plenty of animals that are regularly slaughtered and eaten in western cultures (e.g. cows) are too.
I'm no vegan myself, but I think it's pretty hypocritical to take an ethical stance against the Faroe Islands for hunting pilot whales (which are not endangered by the way) but still contribute to the deaths of our own animals for consumption.
In addition to your points, there's an ethical fallacy to declaring a certain animal to be off the menu because we perceive it as intelligent. As you say, many animals we eat like cows, pigs, and...
In addition to your points, there's an ethical fallacy to declaring a certain animal to be off the menu because we perceive it as intelligent. As you say, many animals we eat like cows, pigs, and horses are similarly intelligent, but those are just by the metrics we use to measure our own intellect. Who's to say other animals aren't intelligent in ways we can't currently measure, or that they are okay to eat while others aren't?
I don't think eating meat is wrong, it's the way of nature and has allowed humanity to thrive to our current level. However we don't necessarily have to keep doing it, we have the luxury to chose our diets which almost no other creature on earth does. In top, the simple fact of the matter is that we as a species eat far too much meat, and there are too many of us who want to eat meat regularly. Ultimately we have to either cease eating meat or make peace with eating much less of it, and either we can make that choice and work towards a sustainable future or nature can make that choice for us.
You do quite fairly point out the hypocrisy there, which is explicitly why I did mention this point as I spoke to their intelligence. I certainly cannot claim to be purely innocent. Now one could...
You do quite fairly point out the hypocrisy there, which is explicitly why I did mention this point as I spoke to their intelligence. I certainly cannot claim to be purely innocent.
Now one could get into an argument over degrees of intelligence or other measures justifying the one but denying the other, but I don't think those would be interesting or even necessary useful here.
Thank you for the response—well put. It's an interesting point that you make regarding the placing of that threshold of acceptable deviation in normative standards across cultures. I'd be quite...
Thank you for the response—well put. It's an interesting point that you make regarding the placing of that threshold of acceptable deviation in normative standards across cultures. I'd be quite interested to hear your position on the purpose of an ethical system in a given culture; perhaps our discord there could be the source of our different reactions to the idea of that deviation!
I suppose that personally, as one who considers virtue and agapē the most critical factors in how I interpret an ethical system, I'm perhaps more prone to view such a system as not only practical in guiding conduct but also, significantly, as a cultural artefact in itself, hence my (potentially irrational!) desire to preserve such things from the pragmatism of expanding "homogeny".
I feel like that's quite a difficult question to answer, which also enters into a sort of is-ought issue. In a perfect world we all would share a perfectly good system of ethics, whatever it would...
. I'd be quite interested to hear your position on the purpose of an ethical system in a given culture
I feel like that's quite a difficult question to answer, which also enters into a sort of is-ought issue.
In a perfect world we all would share a perfectly good system of ethics, whatever it would end up being, and by adhering to it would render all governance potentially redundant.
On a more realistic level, I think cultural ethics play a big part in the politics and legislation of that culture and that can be lost seen in those points where you might have clashes between what are, effectively, different cultures within the same political space. But even here it arguably is a (nominal) purpose more than anything else, certainly not everything that is done by any such faction across the globe will perfectly represent the ethics they claim to stand for. But those ethics will nominally be the guide for their adherents.
as one who considers virtue and agapē the most critical factors in how I interpret an ethical system
I must inquire here, as I had no previous recollection of that term, are you referring to agape (excuse the lack of diacritic) in the meaning of the New Testament, in relation to the divine, or some other meaning? If nothing else, then let it be merely for my own curiosity that I ask.
I'm perhaps more prone to view such a system as not only practical in guiding conduct but also, significantly, as a cultural artefact in itself, hence my (potentially irrational!) desire to preserve such things from the pragmatism of expanding "homogeny".
I find it interesting actually, since I don't think I had explicitly dwelt upon it before, but no, I don't think the ethics part of a culture is inherently worthy of protection in place. Language, for example, I would even, in principle at least, support investment of resources for the preservation of. Ethics? They merit preservation within a historiographical context, certainly. But as for practical adherence... I think not.
And this is interesting to me in part since I don't consider myself particularly inclined towards cultural chauvinism. There are many peoples and many traditions and for those who wish to continue those that don't harm others, among those that wish to continue those, sure.
But ethics are beyond celebrating a holiday or speaking a language or maintaining a certain fashion.
Ethics as the rules of behavior definitionally impact others. And I think somewhere in there is the crux of it.
To that point about slavery, we havent done that, right? Slavery still de facto exists in Mauritania and everyone is just like "Well, it's not technically my problem to fix so..."
To that point about slavery, we havent done that, right? Slavery still de facto exists in Mauritania and everyone is just like "Well, it's not technically my problem to fix so..."
To comment on the "ethical homogeneity", and not necessarily on the specifics of this case, I think humans can come up with a homogeneous ethical framework that would be vastly superior to, from...
To comment on the "ethical homogeneity", and not necessarily on the specifics of this case, I think humans can come up with a homogeneous ethical framework that would be vastly superior to, from what I understand you are proposing, "cultural relativism".
Assuming everyone agrees that the goal of ethics is for the promotion of well-being, then every action you take can be measured against that goal of well-being. If you don't agree with well-being being the foundation of morality/ethics, we can talk, but I am not interested in talking in a vacuum about how others may not agree.
With this view, things like slavery are not "moral" depending on the society, they are always immoral no matter how many people in the society think it's great.
I have to strongly echo that ending or reducing this would be for the wellbeing of the whales, not the tourists. I am a vegetarian, and while I would never force it, I would definitely see it as a...
I have to strongly echo that ending or reducing this would be for the wellbeing of the whales, not the tourists. I am a vegetarian, and while I would never force it, I would definitely see it as a good if anyone who were medically and situationally able to be vegetarian or vegan chose that diet.
To your point about ethical diversity - I believe that cultural diversity is important, but I'm not sure that I can believe that ethical diversity is even possible. Something is either right, wrong, or neutral. Something is either harmful or harmless. The harm is either justified or it is not. I can't think of an example where an act would (and should) be considered unethical by one culture, but isn't and shouldn't be considered unethical by another. The only examples I can think of would be situational. For example, someone mentioned survival as a justifying reason to continue this practice. I agree that survival would make it ethical, but it would also make it a different ethical question. "Is (harmful thing) justified in order to allow survival" is an ethical yes in most cultures, but I don't believe "is harmful thing justified because it is tradition" should be, and I'm very comfortable directing that criticism at my own culture.
I feel very conflicted about this, I grew up vegetarian, but I started having some health problems that made it VERY difficult to continue this way, and now I eat meat. And now it's a normal part...
I am a vegetarian, and while I would never force it, I would definitely see it as a good if anyone who were medically and situationally able to be vegetarian or vegan.
I feel very conflicted about this, I grew up vegetarian, but I started having some health problems that made it VERY difficult to continue this way, and now I eat meat. And now it's a normal part of my life to not be vegetarian, I don't think twice about it. If the medical problems end, God willing, I don't know if i will stop again?
You're not medically able, I believe that qualifies as an ethical justification. Its the same reasoning as self-defense. You have the right to maintain your life and health. It's not the same...
You're not medically able, I believe that qualifies as an ethical justification. Its the same reasoning as self-defense. You have the right to maintain your life and health. It's not the same situation as a person eating turkey at Thanksgiving just because it's traditional.
Well, ad absurdum should we let cultures with cannibalism get away with murders? I think the protection of our Earth is a common goal (should be) that is above individualistic/local communities’...
Well, ad absurdum should we let cultures with cannibalism get away with murders?
I think the protection of our Earth is a common goal (should be) that is above individualistic/local communities’ authority. Sure, it is not fair to those locals, how come some foreign power exerting their wants here, but nonetheless we only need a single bad apple.. so the smaller bad is indeed forcing them to do the “good” thing, which is of course another open question what exactly is, but in this case it is quite black-and-white for a change.
Edit: if the given animal is not endangered and the murder is “clean” and not needlessly painful, then unfortunately I have to take back that black-and-white part, otherwise I would indeed be a hypocrite. Though my general point I believe still stands, e.g. if it would be a single country pouring oil into the ocean, we should all try to stop it together.
I'm personally not too comfortable with this. Is the grindadráp not a significant part of their culture? Of course, in most other cultures—including, presumably, those of almost all of us here—such an act is considered by most common ethics to be abhorrent, and yet I don't really personally think that we should be striving to an ethical homogeny across the world like this. I feel more for the Islanders worried that a deep part of their culture across lives is under threat than I feel for the tourists passing by in cruise liners.
While I would feel more for the Faroese over the endangerment of their culture over tourists visiting them, I'm not sure I feel more for the Faroese over the whales and dolphins themselves.
Edit: for the Faroese' cultural concerns, if it were a matter of survival that'd be different, just to clarify /edit
Now I say this as somebody who does eat meat, but to my understanding the intelligence of especially dolphins is higher than many others in the animal kingdom.
As for ethical homogeny, I'm not sure I can agree with that position (or it's rejection, rather) to an axiomatic degree. Certainly I would like to strive for an eradication of, say, slavery and ethnic cleaning globally.
Having done that reductio ad Hitlerum, I might be willing to concede that some things might benefit of more leeway for a variety of reasons, and even this might, but it shouldn't be merely out of a principal rejection of moralistic reasoning.
Dolphins and whales are obviously smart, but plenty of animals that are regularly slaughtered and eaten in western cultures (e.g. cows) are too.
I'm no vegan myself, but I think it's pretty hypocritical to take an ethical stance against the Faroe Islands for hunting pilot whales (which are not endangered by the way) but still contribute to the deaths of our own animals for consumption.
In addition to your points, there's an ethical fallacy to declaring a certain animal to be off the menu because we perceive it as intelligent. As you say, many animals we eat like cows, pigs, and horses are similarly intelligent, but those are just by the metrics we use to measure our own intellect. Who's to say other animals aren't intelligent in ways we can't currently measure, or that they are okay to eat while others aren't?
I don't think eating meat is wrong, it's the way of nature and has allowed humanity to thrive to our current level. However we don't necessarily have to keep doing it, we have the luxury to chose our diets which almost no other creature on earth does. In top, the simple fact of the matter is that we as a species eat far too much meat, and there are too many of us who want to eat meat regularly. Ultimately we have to either cease eating meat or make peace with eating much less of it, and either we can make that choice and work towards a sustainable future or nature can make that choice for us.
You do quite fairly point out the hypocrisy there, which is explicitly why I did mention this point as I spoke to their intelligence. I certainly cannot claim to be purely innocent.
Now one could get into an argument over degrees of intelligence or other measures justifying the one but denying the other, but I don't think those would be interesting or even necessary useful here.
Thank you for the response—well put. It's an interesting point that you make regarding the placing of that threshold of acceptable deviation in normative standards across cultures. I'd be quite interested to hear your position on the purpose of an ethical system in a given culture; perhaps our discord there could be the source of our different reactions to the idea of that deviation!
I suppose that personally, as one who considers virtue and agapē the most critical factors in how I interpret an ethical system, I'm perhaps more prone to view such a system as not only practical in guiding conduct but also, significantly, as a cultural artefact in itself, hence my (potentially irrational!) desire to preserve such things from the pragmatism of expanding "homogeny".
I feel like that's quite a difficult question to answer, which also enters into a sort of is-ought issue.
In a perfect world we all would share a perfectly good system of ethics, whatever it would end up being, and by adhering to it would render all governance potentially redundant.
On a more realistic level, I think cultural ethics play a big part in the politics and legislation of that culture and that can be lost seen in those points where you might have clashes between what are, effectively, different cultures within the same political space. But even here it arguably is a (nominal) purpose more than anything else, certainly not everything that is done by any such faction across the globe will perfectly represent the ethics they claim to stand for. But those ethics will nominally be the guide for their adherents.
I must inquire here, as I had no previous recollection of that term, are you referring to agape (excuse the lack of diacritic) in the meaning of the New Testament, in relation to the divine, or some other meaning? If nothing else, then let it be merely for my own curiosity that I ask.
I find it interesting actually, since I don't think I had explicitly dwelt upon it before, but no, I don't think the ethics part of a culture is inherently worthy of protection in place. Language, for example, I would even, in principle at least, support investment of resources for the preservation of. Ethics? They merit preservation within a historiographical context, certainly. But as for practical adherence... I think not.
And this is interesting to me in part since I don't consider myself particularly inclined towards cultural chauvinism. There are many peoples and many traditions and for those who wish to continue those that don't harm others, among those that wish to continue those, sure.
But ethics are beyond celebrating a holiday or speaking a language or maintaining a certain fashion.
Ethics as the rules of behavior definitionally impact others. And I think somewhere in there is the crux of it.
To that point about slavery, we havent done that, right? Slavery still de facto exists in Mauritania and everyone is just like "Well, it's not technically my problem to fix so..."
There is a reason I did say "I would like to strive for", as opposed to "I would like to preserve".
To comment on the "ethical homogeneity", and not necessarily on the specifics of this case, I think humans can come up with a homogeneous ethical framework that would be vastly superior to, from what I understand you are proposing, "cultural relativism".
Assuming everyone agrees that the goal of ethics is for the promotion of well-being, then every action you take can be measured against that goal of well-being. If you don't agree with well-being being the foundation of morality/ethics, we can talk, but I am not interested in talking in a vacuum about how others may not agree.
With this view, things like slavery are not "moral" depending on the society, they are always immoral no matter how many people in the society think it's great.
I have to strongly echo that ending or reducing this would be for the wellbeing of the whales, not the tourists. I am a vegetarian, and while I would never force it, I would definitely see it as a good if anyone who were medically and situationally able to be vegetarian or vegan chose that diet.
To your point about ethical diversity - I believe that cultural diversity is important, but I'm not sure that I can believe that ethical diversity is even possible. Something is either right, wrong, or neutral. Something is either harmful or harmless. The harm is either justified or it is not. I can't think of an example where an act would (and should) be considered unethical by one culture, but isn't and shouldn't be considered unethical by another. The only examples I can think of would be situational. For example, someone mentioned survival as a justifying reason to continue this practice. I agree that survival would make it ethical, but it would also make it a different ethical question. "Is (harmful thing) justified in order to allow survival" is an ethical yes in most cultures, but I don't believe "is harmful thing justified because it is tradition" should be, and I'm very comfortable directing that criticism at my own culture.
I feel very conflicted about this, I grew up vegetarian, but I started having some health problems that made it VERY difficult to continue this way, and now I eat meat. And now it's a normal part of my life to not be vegetarian, I don't think twice about it. If the medical problems end, God willing, I don't know if i will stop again?
You're not medically able, I believe that qualifies as an ethical justification. Its the same reasoning as self-defense. You have the right to maintain your life and health. It's not the same situation as a person eating turkey at Thanksgiving just because it's traditional.
Well, ad absurdum should we let cultures with cannibalism get away with murders?
I think the protection of our Earth is a common goal (should be) that is above individualistic/local communities’ authority. Sure, it is not fair to those locals, how come some foreign power exerting their wants here, but nonetheless we only need a single bad apple.. so the smaller bad is indeed forcing them to do the “good” thing, which is of course another open question what exactly is, but in this case it is quite black-and-white for a change.
Edit: if the given animal is not endangered and the murder is “clean” and not needlessly painful, then unfortunately I have to take back that black-and-white part, otherwise I would indeed be a hypocrite. Though my general point I believe still stands, e.g. if it would be a single country pouring oil into the ocean, we should all try to stop it together.