Culling 'side product' hatchlings

[tyflier]

Barbara,

I'm sorry that your well-intentioned thread has come to this. Sophistical attempts to redefine your terms in order to produce a counterintuitive conclusion is certainly not what you sought.

There seems to be a cadre of people here who do not understand ethics at all and yet believe they can tell you all about it. They claim boldly, they quote, but do not cite, a pat definition. To think that there are those who bemoan that someone can leave high school without understanding the reference "intelligent gas from Pluto," but are not at all concerned that something as important as ethics was completely ignored throughout their schooling.

All right people: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Kant's ethics:

Kant is the primary proponent in history of what is called deontological ethics. Deontology is the study of duty. On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action.​

Also, feel free to check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and look up "ethics" to get a more thorough background on the field.

Lacking references, it is difficult to compare the sources of others' claims to Kant, but I imagine they would be found to be far less thorough (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes in the same section, "It is rare for a philosopher in any era to make a significant impact on any single topic in philosophy. For a philosopher to impact as many different areas as Kant did is extraordinary. His ethical theory has been as, if not more, influential than his work in epistemology and metaphysics."). Thus, to claim that "all <x> is the same from an ethical standpoint" is not only misleading; it is invalid, and it reflects a poor understanding of the topic at hand.

This is all rather frustrating to someone who actually takes these issues seriously.

-Sean

That's all well and good, except that by your own quote, the "definition of ethics" which you provided is really a definition of morals. There is a difference.

ethics-

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: eth·ics
Pronunciation: 'e-thiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a profession —see also ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct in the IMPORTANT LAWS section

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

morals-

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

By these citations, as near as I can figure, something that is ethical is ALWAYS moral. However, something that is moral is not always ethical. Case in point, I can conduct myself in a very moral manner as both boxing promoter and boxing manager. I only need to seperate myself from the equation and perform ALL business dealings with the boxer as the sole focus of priority in order to be moral. However, this activity is ALWAYS unethical.

By the same token, I can conduct myself in a moral manner by never killing any healthy animal. However, this is NOT always ethical, because the survival of these animals in itself may be detrimental to the species as a whole, or detrimental to the individual animals.

There is a VAST difference between what one considers morally right, and what is ethical. Period. I am sorry that someone who "takes these issues seriously" has, as of yet, failed to recognize that...

 

[diamondlil]

That's all well and good, except that by your own quote, the "definition of ethics" which you provided is really a definition of morals. There is a difference.

ethics-


morals-



By these citations, as near as I can figure, something that is ethical is ALWAYS moral. However, something that is moral is not always ethical. Case in point, I can conduct myself in a very moral manner as both boxing promoter and boxing manager. I only need to seperate myself from the equation and perform ALL business dealings with the boxer as the sole focus of priority in order to be moral. However, this activity is ALWAYS unethical.

By the same token, I can conduct myself in a moral manner by never killing any healthy animal. However, this is NOT always ethical, because the survival of these animals in itself may be detrimental to the species as a whole, or detrimental to the individual animals.

There is a VAST difference between what one considers morally right, and what is ethical. Period. I am sorry that someone who "takes these issues seriously" has, as of yet, failed to recognize that...

I so wish I could rep you for this post

 

[tyflier]

Oh, and one more thing, Eremita...

Someone who obviously has an interest and at least rudimentary understanding of philosophy whould be WELL aware that there is no right or wrong answer, only various shades of grey.

You should be aware that philosophical citations are not as "cut and dry" as strict definitions. Anytime a philosophy or ideal is brought into the debate, there is GOING to be a difference of opinion. Trying to use one philosophical opinion as a cited resource to support your OWN philosophical opinion is "iffy", at best. 2 opinions that are similar does NOT equal a fact, unfortunately. It ONLY equals two opinions that are similar, and would be much better presented AS opinions, rather than attempting to portray such as fact.

 

[Eremita]

(...)
By these citations, as near as I can figure, something that is ethical is ALWAYS moral. However, something that is moral is not always ethical. Case in point, I can conduct myself in a very moral manner as both boxing promoter and boxing manager. I only need to seperate myself from the equation and perform ALL business dealings with the boxer as the sole focus of priority in order to be moral. However, this activity is ALWAYS unethical.
(...)

Pah. You did not actually go to the Stanford Encyclopedia, did you? Heck, why don't we just teach kids the dictionary? Check out this text to get more of a background on the terms:

In what follows, the term ‘morality’ will be used more frequently than ‘ethics’. Philosophers have drawn various contrasts between ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ at various times (Kant for example, and Hegel, and more recently R. M. Hare and Bernard Williams). But etymologically, the term ‘moral’ comes from the Latin mos, which means custom or habit, and it is a translation of the Greek ethos, which means roughly the same thing, and is the origin of the term ‘ethics’. In contemporary non-technical use, the two terms are more or less interchangeable, though ‘ethics’ has slightly more flavor of theory, and has been associated with the prescribed practice of various professions (e.g., medical ethics, etc.).​

But I appreciate your citing something, at least.

-Sean

 

[tyflier]

Pah. You did not actually go to the Stanford Encyclopedia, did you? Heck, why don't we just teach kids the dictionary? Check out this text to get more of a background on the terms:

In what follows, the term ‘morality’ will be used more frequently than ‘ethics’. Philosophers have drawn various contrasts between ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ at various times (Kant for example, and Hegel, and more recently R. M. Hare and Bernard Williams). But etymologically, the term ‘moral’ comes from the Latin mos, which means custom or habit, and it is a translation of the Greek ethos, which means roughly the same thing, and is the origin of the term ‘ethics’. In contemporary non-technical use, the two terms are more or less interchangeable, though ‘ethics’ has slightly more flavor of theory, and has been associated with the prescribed practice of various professions (e.g., medical ethics, etc.).​

But I appreciate your citing something, at least.

-Sean

Oh, so now my citations are only valid if you approve of where they come from? That's pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. When I want the definition of a word, I go to the dictionary...like 95% of the world today. When I want someone else's understanding of a word or situation(which is really an interpretation and opinion of the situation), I go to an encyclopedia.

Where else would you go for a definition other than a dictionary? No really...I don't care about the etymology, because we are not speaking in Greek or Latin, or any other language. I am citing the definition as known by the dictionary and as used in modern English language. I really don't care what some mid-15th century philosopher wrote. I am only concerned with the modern usage of the words, and the subsequent definitions AS they are used in today's language. All of your rambling about where the words derived from and what certain long-dead philosophers particularly thought about them is regardless to this topic. This topic is solely and purposefully focused on TODAY, not 1456...(yes...I pulled that year from my butt.)

I never heard of Kant, or whatever his name is. And I studied philosophy for a number of years in college. He couldn't have been THAT influential if I never heard his name mentioned in any book I ever read regarding the topic of philosophy.

But then again...it is NEVER difficult to find a philosopher, somewhere, that is respected by a certain group of like-minded individuals, which you can cite as "proof" of your belief. Frankly, I don't care what your opinion is about any subject, there is a "school of thought" that agrees with you and has published written works by their "great philosophers" to support your beliefs. It doesn't change the fact that it is STILL the sum of opinions, and NONE of it is a fact.

This topic is slowly getting more and more ridiculous. Now there is a person trying to use opinion and interpretation as if it were a fact, and denying the facts because of his opinion... :shrugs:

 

[diamondlil]

Rather than philosophical definitions, wasn't the purpose of this poll to compare member's stance on culling hatchlings?

 

[Roy Munson]

This has been an interesting discussion, and I don't think I have to post a "Rule #7" reminder yet. I hope I won't have to.

 

[Eremita]

(...)
Where else would you go for a definition other than a dictionary? No really...I don't care about the etymology, because we are not speaking in Greek or Latin, or any other language. I am citing the definition as known by the dictionary and as used in modern English language. I really don't care what some mid-15th century philosopher wrote. I am only concerned with the modern usage of the words, and the subsequent definitions AS they are used in today's language. All of your rambling about where the words derived from and what certain long-dead philosophers particularly thought about them is regardless to this topic. This topic is solely and purposefully focused on TODAY, not 1456...(yes...I pulled that year from my butt.)

Well, I see you can insert some humor into a debate; maybe there is hope for you yet. But, you must have missed the "In contemporary non-technical use..." part of my quote. Contemporary refers to "today". Anyway, what do you do when two dictionaries report different definitions? Also, if you want to find out about love, do you go to the dictionary? What about jazz? But ethics, well, it's just fine for ethics.

I never heard of Kant, or whatever his name is. And I studied philosophy for a number of years in college. He couldn't have been THAT influential if I never heard his name mentioned in any book I ever read regarding the topic of philosophy.
(...)

Well, Chris, I want you to imagine me (however you picture me) with the same slapped-in-the-face dropped jaw that you probably had when JoeJr said he'd never heard of Vonnegut. Except my default response in such cases is not to pine about the state of education, but only to pause at the absurdity of life...

I'm definitely preferring your communications at this stage of the discussion than earlier, but I gotta go to my aesthetics class. Ciao.

-Sean

 

[jaxom1957]

Philosophers have drawn various contrasts between ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ at various times

A working definition of morals is those actions deemed acceptable and in common practice by society at large; that of ethics is the behavior deemed acceptable and expected of those working in a given field. The discussion in this thread concerns the ethics, ie: the acceptable and expected behavior, of snake breeders.

As I've stated previously, society accepts breeding and producing animals specifically for feeding either man or other animals, therefor, culling offspring to feed other snakes is shown to be moral. Under what circumstances do those involved in keeping snakes find it acceptable, ethical, to kill hatchlings?

When someone who does not put themselves forward as a hobbyist or breeder kills a snake, such as a homeowner who stumbles upon one in his yard and kills it with a shovel, there is no breach of ethics because that person has no ethical duty to the species. There is an expectation that other keepers will act in a manner that promotes the species and the hobby of keeping snakes, an expectation that does not apply to the general public. Do we find that culling snakes under each of the criteria polled is ethical? If so, why? If not, why not? I've stated my opinions and the reasons for which I hold them, and I read on in the hopes that others will do the same and either confirm my beliefs or challenge them and cause me to reexamine them. I'm not here to argue semantics or to put anyone down. How about the rest of you?

 

[tyflier]

Well, Chris, I want you to imagine me (however you picture me) with the same slapped-in-the-face dropped jaw that you probably had when JoeJr said he'd never heard of Vonnegut. Except my default response in such cases is not to pine about the state of education, but only to pause at the absurdity of life...

I said I studied philosophy...I didn't say I was good at it....

Perhaps another example would clarify my opinion of the difference between ethics and morals:

Dr. Kevorkian is a prime case for study. What he did in his euthanizing of terminally ill patients was VERY justified as regards his, and many other person's, moral standings. He felt he was providing a service to these patients, by allowing them to decide for themselves when their illness was goign to end their life, and by allowing them to make that decision on their own terms, and BEFORE the full effects of the illness were felt in terms of pain and suffering. He felt morally justified in his actions.

However, he lost his medical license and his practice because the very act of providing a pill that will cause there pre-mature death is blatantly contrary to the code of ethics that binds ALL medical professionals.

In other words, his action was unethical(deliberately causing the death of his patients). However his justification in doing so was morally sound(to prevent an extended life of pain and misery).

While I agree that "moral" and "ethical" can be, and often are, synonomous, such is not always the case. It is my opinion that in this particular debate, the difference between the two is not only exponential, but relatively self-explanatory. The reason for this is opinion is because I feel morally wrong in causing the death of healthy hatchlings, but I cannot deny that in certain instances it would be appropriate to do so, even if I wouldn't do it myself. Now...by the very act of stating "in certain instances", I am changing from the discussion of ethics to the discussion of morals. So, by my own arguments, if I am willing to accept that it is morally "the right thing to do" in certain situations, I *should* be willing to accept that it would be "ethical" regardless of the reasons. I don't have to agree with it to recognize it's fundemental "rightness" in terms of ethics.

 

[SnakeAround]

I'm not bothered by the discussion going this way at all, since people are still polite and stating interesting things. Though since I don't know philosophers and my language skills are not sufficient for philosophic debates I stay out of the quoting stuff...

Jaxom, thanks for providing this simple but very clear definiton to work with;

"A working definition of morals is those actions deemed acceptable and in common practice by society at large; that of ethics is the behavior deemed acceptable and expected of those working in a given field. The discussion in this thread concerns the ethics, ie: the acceptable and expected behavior, of snake breeders."


"As I've stated previously, society accepts breeding and producing animals specifically for feeding either man or other animals, therefor, culling offspring to feed other snakes is shown to be moral. Under what circumstances do those involved in keeping snakes find it acceptable, ethical, to kill hatchlings?"

Well said but I must say though that I do think moral is personal too, not only what society thinks. One can have his or her own moral.

Jaxom kuddo's for feeling the same about being challenged to re-examine ones thoughts... that for me IS what debating is about and what i like about it.

Since my ethical standards happen to be the same as my moral regarding this subject, and of course language played a role, they got mixed up by me, but I also feel it is a good or even logical thing when your ethics match your morals.

I still don't see how one can sincerely say; 'Hey, this is my moral, but ethics allow me to put my moral aside when I think it is necessary.' (My interpretation of Chris' "I feel morally wrong in causing the death of healthy hatchlings, but I cannot deny that in certain instances it would be appropriate to do so")

What is the worth of your moral then? When one decides to label an action as ethically right, though not morally, I do think that at that moment one is just working out details within ones moral to base the new piece of ethics on.

So, when for example labeling 'culling pure looking hybrids' as ethically right, one is adapting ones moral but playing a 'tric' IMO to be able to say ones moral has not changed; 'Killing healthy hatchlings is not ok morally but when the market is threated it is about ethics and not about morals so my conscience is silenced and I can keep my morals'. Everybody happy... :sidestep: A very human thing to do by the way...

C'hris said;
"Now...by the very act of stating "in certain instances", I am changing from the discussion of ethics to the discussion of morals."

Is this not the opposite of what you said just above it? I thought ethics 'enable' you in certain situations to do or justify something you do not see as moral? Hence when you have made up your mind on your morals, you can go on and see if ethics should be applied instead....

With the second statement you say that talking about 'certain instances' make you swith from debating ethics to debating morals...

 

[SnakeAround]

So, to me it works this way

Moral; one should only kill hatchlings when it serves a natural goal or to prevent an animal from suffering.

Ethics; what is a natural goal and when do I prevent an animal from suffering?

Is protecting the pure market a natural goal or meant to prevent suffering? No... so for me, it does not fit within my moral standard to do so.

Of course, I can say my ethic 'category's do not have to match my moral standard so I can keep my moral and still do it... but I do not want to play what is a trick IMO.

I could also change my moral standard to fit in the action of culling pure looking hybrids, so it included 'when it protects the pure market'. But I just do not see that as my moral standards.

 

[tyflier]

So, to me it works this way

Moral; one should only kill hatchlings when it serves a natural goal or to prevent an animal from suffering.

Ethics; what is a natural goal and when do I prevent an animal from suffering?

Is protecting the pure market a natural goal or meant to prevent suffering? No... so for me, it does not fit within my moral standard to do so.

Of course, I can say my ethic 'category's do not have to match my moral standard so I can keep my moral and still do it... but I do not want to play what is a trick IMO.

I could also change my moral standard to fit in the action of culling pure looking hybrids, so it included 'when it protects the pure market'. But I just do not see that as my moral standards.

First, let me try to clarify my opinions for you. I say that it is ethical to kill healthy offspring. Notice that in that statement, I did NOT mention any specific reason as to why or when this is ethical, only that it is(IMO).

My moral standing is to NOT kill healthy offspring. Period. That does not change my opinion of the ethical value of killing healthy offspring, it only clarifies my choice and moral standing as regards the killing of healthy offspring. I don't have to participate in the culling of healthy offspring to believe in it's ethical validity. Now, depending on the situation, my moral standing as regards the ethics of killing healthy offspring may change. The ethical value has not changed, only my moral opinion of it, and only in certain instances.

In other words, as a breeder, I will cull offspring only in the case of physical deformity or impairment, or psychological deformity or impairment. However, that does NOT mean that I think killing healthy offspring is wrong under a blanket policy. I believe, firmly, that there is a moral value to killing healthy offspring in certain instances. IMO--this very statement *should* mean that there is an ethical "rightness" to killing healthy offspring. My moral standing will not permit me to cull healthy offspring at this poiint in my "career" as a breeder. But that doesn't mean that there is NO ethical value in it, only that I, myself, do not participate in it. Now, given new circumstances, a wider perspective, and a new point of view, my moral standing may change. The ethics have not changed, only my moral standing.

...I still don't see how one can sincerely say; 'Hey, this is my moral, but ethics allow me to put my moral aside when I think it is necessary.' (My interpretation of Chris' "I feel morally wrong in causing the death of healthy hatchlings, but I cannot deny that in certain instances it would be appropriate to do so") ...

Nobody has said that("'Hey, this is my moral, but ethics allow me to put my moral aside when I think it is necessary"). I have stated that my morals prevent me from killing healthy offspring. The ethics are not mine, they are that of the business. The ethics do not change, merely my moral opinion OF the ethics.

Morals can, do, and will change...continually...throughout our lifetime. New perspectives on old problems may cause you to find yourself standing on a different moral ground than you would have been 10 years ago. For example...when I was 17 and couldn't purchase alcohol for myself, I could not understand why someone wouldn't purchase alcohol for me. It made no sense to me because I thought it was no big deal. Currently, at the age of 33, I will not purchase alcohol for someone under the age of 21. My morals won't allow me to. This is because as I have aged and matured, and my perspective has changed, so have my morals.

I can only assume that at some point in my future as a breeder, my perspective on culling healthy animals will be changed, and this could cause my morals to change...but the ethic will remain the same. The "ethic", in this instance, is the precedent of killing healthy animals. The "moral stand" would be reasons why I may find myself doing just that in the future.

 

[tyflier]

Let me see if I can put this in a less "wordy" way--

In the business of breeding snakes, the ethic is that culling of healthy offspring is OK, providing that the offspring never suffer.

The morals of an individual breeder will dictate when they person chooses to excercise that option or not.

You, Blutengel, stated earlier that you can understand certain instances when culling of healthy offspring is acceptable. Those are YOUR moral standards. Mine may be different. Vinman's may be different, Susan's. KathyLove's, Dean's. Rich's...we may all have moral differences. But the ethic validity of culling healthy offspring does not change, because we, each and everyone, can agree that there ARE instances(moral situations), when we would agree with it and when we would not, even though we may not agree with each other as to what those instances are...

 

[JoannaD]

Let me see if I can put this in a less "wordy" way--

In the business of breeding snakes, the ethic is that culling of healthy offspring is OK, providing that the offspring never suffer.

The morals of an individual breeder will dictate when they person chooses to excercise that option or not.

You, Blutengel, stated earlier that you can understand certain instances when culling of healthy offspring is acceptable. Those are YOUR moral standards. Mine may be different. Vinman's may be different, Susan's. KathyLove's, Dean's. Rich's...we may all have moral differences. But the ethic validity of culling healthy offspring does not change, because we, each and everyone, can agree that there ARE instances(moral situations), when we would agree with it and when we would not, even though we may not agree with each other as to what those instances are...

Unfortunately I can't rep you but I think you hit the nail on the head!

Joanna

 

[SnakeAround]

So, we can agree again that our morals on culling healthy offspring are different indeed.... I was never interested in ethics in business in general anyway.... These decisions are very personal and that is why I wanted people to tell their personal opinions, not if they think certain actions are considered ethical in business. For me the fact that something is considered ethical in business, does not make it right to do if it does not fit within my personal morals. It looks like some people do think that way though; 'It might be against my morals, but it is considered ethical in business so I won't say it is a wrong thing to do... I might even change my moral and do it myself in the future'. Ok, I think things are getting clear for me and that is my goal of all these questions

But how do you know this ; "In the business of breeding snakes, the ethic is that culling of healthy offspring is OK, providing that the offspring never suffer."?

I will follow my own morals/etics and will never do anything against my morals, even if the business considers it to be ethical.

 

[tyflier]

I justify the following statement in a number of ways:

...But how do you know this ; "In the business of breeding snakes, the ethic is that culling of healthy offspring is OK, providing that the offspring never suffer."?...

First and foremost would be the NECESSITY for us, as snake keepers(whether breeders or not), to kill healthy animals at least once a week in order to feed our snakes. We either breed or purchase rodents strictly for consumption. This very fact means that we are ALL willing to accept a certain amount of necessary killing of healthy animals, else we wouldn't own snakes as pets. From there, it is really a matter of which moral lines you choose to draw for yourself.

I also used references such as what I stated earlier. There ARE snake breeders that cull healthy snake offspring for food. There ARE snake breeders that cull healthy hybrid offspring. There ARE breeders that cull ofspring because they do not fit a specific "look". Again...since these people exist in this business, it is only necessary to draw your own moral lines from there.

While my statement that it is ethical to kill healthy offspring may not be "encoded" in some "written in stone" document of ethics, there are precedents in modern breeding to support the claim, and so aagain, it is only necessary to draw your own moral lines.

Further, I don't regard "changing one's morals" as necessarily a bad thing. I think it is a fact of growth and maturity. As an individual gains more experiences and possibly different perspectives, it is nearly impossible for your moral standings to remain constant. I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single person on this board over the age of 20 that has maintained exactly the same moral positions throughout their lives. Granted, that is an assumption, but it is one I would stick by. It isn't changing your morals to help yourself feel less guilty about an action. It is the necessary rearrangement of your morals based on new experiences and perspective, which I firmly believe is a necessary component of growth, both personally and professionally.

 

[kathylove]

Tyflier...

The forum still won't let me rep you again yet. But your debate points are so logical and well thought out that I think you must be part Vulcan, lol!

 

[Russell]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tyflier again.


*sigh* oh why oh why must I spread it around first?

 

[SnakeAround]

"Further, I don't regard "changing one's morals" as necessarily a bad thing. I think it is a fact of growth and maturity. As an individual gains more experiences and possibly different perspectives, it is nearly impossible for your moral standings to remain constant. I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single person on this board over the age of 20 that has maintained exactly the same moral positions throughout their lives. Granted, that is an assumption, but it is one I would stick by. It isn't changing your morals to help yourself feel less guilty about an action. It is the necessary rearrangement of your morals based on new experiences and perspective, which I firmly believe is a necessary component of growth, both personally and professionally."

I fully agree wit that, but to me it seems like some people try to find a way to keep their morals the same whilst doing things that do not fit within, by stating that ethics 'allow' it. Why? Cause they know other people might think their new morals are no good.... or to don't have to cope with their own conscience? I might have stepped on toes saying this but for me a discrepancy between your morals and the things you actually do or say you would be able to do, seems just not possible without fooling yourself/others. (This is not an attack but a sincere feeling). I do see now that killing purposely bred offspring from my virtual bairdi x yellow rat snake cross because nobody wants to buy them, might be considered ethical, though morally it does not feel good. I would never be able to do so because of the latter... I would feel horrible and probably end up keeping them all and selling some beloved snakes instead to good homes...