formed

Posts Tagged "ethical"

Just the other day I wrote an article on ethics . What from the Faroe Islands , an independent nation within the Kingdom of Denmark, happens can not describe with words, do not hold with the mind. And it shows what occurs to the people as the worst of all animals.

"Stop the Atrocitiy" . - Stop the cruelty Jörg Leichtfried of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has launched an inquiry to the Commission :

For years, the EU country Denmark pilot whales, beaked whales and dolphins are tortured and killed most shameful manner. This is done primarily on the Faroe Islands, under the guise of a Viking tradition. Often hundreds of copies to be lured into a bay and alive slashed so they bleed to death slowly. This whole families are killed, which also threatens the gene pool of the species massive.
The Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark and are subsidized by it, rather than to halt the massacre. Although the islanders are living below the Danes and the Danish Flag, Denmark refers to the self-government and cultural autonomy of the islands. If it were not an EU country and it would therefore not be treated as such!

Accordingly, the problem seems quite unknown not to be. The response from 3.3.2009, also found in his blog is, unfortunately, not so, as one might wish for:

The hunting of pilot whales from the IWC, but unfortunately not regulated, as to date no agreement on the competence of the IWC is for small cetaceans. Given the current discussions about the future of the IWC, the Commission hopes that the EU and other parties to the IWC'll also be able to address problems in small cetaceans.

Climb into the problem, there are some sites on the net that deal with it. Two pages I want to mention proxy: OpenPR (from there is also the image above) reports that Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace has once this year with plans nother activist campaigns against the whale slaughter. On the "sea acrobats" and other links are offered. The last link in the list does not like that, but here you get to the article "Grindwaljagd on the Faroe Islands - Between Tradition and barbarism" to Polarblog.de.
And: Possibly determines it does not bring too much if one sets up a protest note to the Ministerpräsideanten the Faroe Islands, but at least we find the justified anger of the right channel:
The email from Jóannes Eidesgaard, the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands: info@tinganes.fo.

Why there are actually small whales and dolphins en masse * in a carnival atmosphere in the presence and participation of children abeschlachtet?

From a Viking tradition are still slaughtered whales, although that is no longer needed food source. In the cultural awareness of the Faroes is missing an ethic that condemns the slaughter of whales. Tradition is paramount, children in this way is exemplified. The catch is then divided among all, to ** the cohesion and strengthen Faroese identity.

Some cultures have given up in the wake of the safe supply of food and social change traditions, but they continue to live here, to be cherished. However, some do have concerns about the image of the island group. For the eyes of the rest of the world is only barbaric, but, as so often in life, subject to ethical evaluations to the eye of the beholder. Even whaling nations like Japan and Norway do not feel it as a crime against nature and always find excuses between tradition and science.

In the comments the article "Stop the Atrocity" to find items such as:

You caint call people who do this animals because animals are not cruel like humans. Humans are at the bottom of the chain of living creatures and all life entities. [Ragan]

I'm about to cry. [Cuddlebones]

This is awful, heartbreaking and so unethical. [...] We have a serious problem on this planet with our ethics, treatment and perspective around animals. From factory farming practices to the whale, dolphin and seal slaughters around the world - it is all wrong.
Where are our ethics? Where is the humane treatment? How can we expect to create a better world for people when we do not treat other life with any respect? [Jefftego]

What remains is shaking their heads in disbelief and bewilderment in the face of such practices. And the question of a converted, lived environmental ethic. Tearing lions in Africa, cattle and goats from strains that penetrate ever further into the territory of the big cats, they are attacked as dangerous. Attacks by wolves or bears, for example, by the expanding human habitats are also becoming increasingly restricted, lead to discussions about hunting permits. Such animals are then just "problem bears" or "problem wolves". We tend to make us the world the way it is acceptable to us. Self-Appointed, we refer to ourselves as the culmination of creation. No animal deserves that name kills for fun or for personal edification. We believe, however, as the ax in the forest may proceed.

The planet would be in balance if we do not use this setting would be. The extinction of animal and plant species not only means that there are a few species, metabolized to carbon dioxide oxygen, respectively. Types have their place in a structure that is much larger and more complex. The results of death for at least a threat of extinction of other species, because food chains are broken. Types have a meaning beyond itself circuits.

What exactly is our contribution to that? What would change if we are in a day would not be here? This question may ask yourself ... everyone but the spectrum of possible answers can draw from a pool of a nearly empty lot.

Someone once claimed that humanoids are the crowning glory of creation, because our thinking organ is most developed. To the advanced state of development of our brain we do not explain away. Alone therefore suggests itself to the question of why we do not turn and then use.

Ultimately it's this: In the context of evolution must go types, but also new ones are coming. Of evolution, it does not matter who on this planet, carbon dioxide or oxygen consumed metabolized - the main thing, everything is in balance. But only we, the oh-so-standing above all other life humanoids sawing off the branch on which we sit. With growing enthusiasm and with open eyes.

No other life form would think to change the environment so vital that it can no longer serve this purpose. This is stupid, which is narrow-minded, that's ignorant and self-destructive. But who thinks outside of us in categories such as "profit maximization" or "yield enhancement"?

The Cree-old wisdom is often quoted, almost worn out - but it's damn true, as before:

Only when the last tree is felled,
the last river poisoned,
the last fish is caught,
You will find
that you can not eat money!

Addition:
Just a new comment is added. The author complains that the article presented a bias, a bias in terms of goals, well Unkennntnis in the traditions of the Faroe Islands. He argues that everyone will be killing the whales observed by anyone who recorded and discussed. It says:

Being humans, i would suspect that by killing animals in this way gives the individuals involved a sense of profound awe and reverence in mortality with for nature that you are probably incapable of imagining.

He continues:

I think they're disgusting for doing this, but on the other hand, I recognize that I am not one to judge. For once, these people are not living in the same prepackaged, sterile world as you, and a glimpse of that scares you so much because you realize how awfully empty, meaningless, and mundane your life in this experience, devoid society we live in really is. Tap into those fucking keyboards misdirected anger now, you tedious, stumbling hypocrites.

This is so everybody can make his own thoughts. Wars, killing in order of the State - even here there are traditions. Important in this context is the reflection, the assessment on an ethical background. And against this background, the massacre of cetaceans not better. Is it really not up to us to be able to evaluate such practices only because we live in a different environment? With all due respect, with such arguments, we could even the bustle of the Sudan to stand idly by.

And the comment is:

And yet, with your haughty, privileged supposedly civilized values, you see red tides in some tiny little foreign Iceland where a bunch of locals who have never done anything to you engage in a traditional (and you have no idea how they willingly engage in this either, btw, it could be that kids who do not are ostracized by their communities and peers) that far more cash than any organicity it to profiteer driven animal slaughters, and it tugs your heartstrings naive.

Profit-driven animal slaughter - this is not a duldbarer state conditions during transport of animals and factory farming using chemical lobes are equally worthy of condemnation. (This is why we rarely eat meat, and if so, it comes from farmers around the corner, we have a rural part Allermöhe in Hamburg fortunately available in different styles.)

* I know dolphins are 40 species with the largest group of whales.

** To make matters worse are the marine mammals are no longer fit for human consumption - their exposure to contaminants is too high. Tradition or not - the fact that the animals are not even in the sense of tradition that the hunt is based, can be recycled, makes things any better.

Berlin is facing a landmark election: So far, there are ethics as a compulsory subject, along with religion as freely selectable range (Chapeaux for it!). An Initiative " Pro Reli "wants to change that, it goes after her, in future to have ethics or religion in the curriculum.
Reigns, hardly has a state once introduced something that makes sense * because it is shaken again. I chew it now does not contradict anything here, but refer to the sources provided with numerous items of eight . There is also a lively discussion has shown in the comment section, where I was not entirely disinterested. But the interest in such a decision, "We are all Berliners are no" is clearly transnational.

But what is really ethical?

The term comes from ancient Greek: "the moral (understanding)", "usual seat, habit, custom, tradition, character, disposition," [source: wiki].
Ethics is the philosophical field. Mainly it's about morality. But no, when a football coach once again emphasizes the team has shown morale, then it must not come at the same time ehtisch properly so. And yet there is a parallel to the football: Ethics takes place on the field: The practical application of philosophy in the form of legal, political, social philosophy - how we act? What are the consequences of our actions? (The theorists of classical philosophy, however, deal with the meta-level is the level behind it, a kind look behind the scenes. Knowledge, logic, metaphysics)

Several years ago I was involved in a study by the University of Hamburg, Department of Health . According to the empirical data collection and analysis of our group was invited to Berlin ("Berlin, Berlin, we're going to Berlin" - no, these parallels!) To the Enquete ** Commission on "Ethics and Law in Modern Medicine" of the German Bundestag our results are to present and answer questions. Why here is mentioned, you might be wondering. Well, as you can see the name of the Commission on, legal and ethical issues are closely related. Ideally, the decision of a law is not possible without consideration of ethical principles. The Parliament as a legislature must, therefore, also with such issues grapple . deal

Ethics is human behavior to the test, examines how traditions, customs and manners of a normative judgment stand, and how the insights gained, practical (ie on the pitch) can be implemented. Reason led to a *** to values ​​and norms established to enable coexistence in a society. What is good and bad? What are the consequences of what I'm doing? Such a thing requires reflection of the action. Thus, it is not surprising that in addition to individual, peace and social ethics and an environmental ethic. (George W. Bush had the jovilalen with a "No way, you are wastin 'my time' dismissed as outrageous nonsense, I would be surprised seriously when the word" ethics "to know at all would - I just remind you of waterboarding , Guantanamo and attempting born in the national parks of Alaska for oil to try.)

Ethics is not a jack of all trades. You can give food for thought, create the basis for further consideration to offer assistance for complex interrelationships, and principles - but the implementation must take place in each specific case. (. The expert also referred to as deductive approach), but in ethics teaching can also be taken of the inductive way: Starting from a specific problem, you can try to derive general performance suggestions. (This holds, however, possible sources of error, but that's another story.)

The better prepared and trained someone is, the better the judgment when it comes to general (ethical) principles to changing and new situations and apply to come to a possible action. In order to respond accordingly, both the judgment and the general ethical background to be trained.

All this is achieved without taking into account the different denominations. Muslims and Jews, Christians and atheists alike can benefit from ethics. So there some kind of jack of all trades, this ethic? At least, rather than religion. Not everything in the Scriptures, must necessarily be traceable via reason and reflection. Finally, in the name of religion can be quite excellent fight wars. Ethically considered, war is less than the last resort. Interest to resolve conflicts in a different way is, in any case, the better, because more rational and less prone to collateral damage path.

But, dear Berliners will decide, but the way you consider it appropriate. Somehow I'm building but to the multicultural melting pot of Berlin. Humanistic thinking, then it will just happen. And to even get back to football: the Hertha has now completed the series of negative and defeated Werder Bremen 2-1. If it is then in the end 2-1 is the ethics ...

I know I'm not a Berliner. (Although I was tempted several times to become one, Hamburg has always scored in the decisive moments.)

Oh, one more thing: Actually, we could close the ethics altogether. Each student receives in return a leaf in the hand on which the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant is written:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time that it should become a universal law."

Thanks, that's it, the ethics class is closed. The most important guideline you have now. Good luck in solving complex problems! And now for something completely different: religion. Does anyone have questions?
"Why does God allow war to be?"
"Why is the use of condoms as protection against disease and unwanted pregnancies in the Catholic Church is categorically rejected?"
"If God is love, then why was the Spanish Inquisition?"
"If God is love, then why does he constantly punishes the unbelievers?"
"In the ten commandments is: Thou shalt not kill. Why, there was the forced Christianization in South America? Why the Crusades? "

What do you think? Have we ever get back in religious instruction proper answers to such questions, let alone discussed it seriously?

And finally, almost every religious group has a missionary urge. In the sacred writings, as well as ever they may be called, which is credited and demands. (I have since times long ago in the comments of a forum read: "The Christian missionaries are even sent into the world Everybody wants to be nu times." And further increase ".": "It is like bringing in a new Otto Versand customers and you get the towel. ")
Religions impose universal and absolute claims. The juxtaposition seems so de facto not possible. Ethics is something like the common pillar for an interaction. That does not make confessions. Since it is rather to the expression of parallel societies. Roller has an opened source from which I quote at this point like , because it is better (than last word) can not be formulated:

If society fails to lay a foundation of shared values, a tolerant coexistence is threatened.

* In fact, it does not make any sense at all, that in German "makes little sense." Something has a purpose, or for all I care, it is one, but it makes no sense that something makes sense. Makes sense, right?
Enquête **: It is not difficult to recognize from the French investigation. About Fractional (in simple terms: non-partisan) investigation working group that is trying to develop a consensus for long-term problems and issues, which is acceptable to the largest possible proportion of the population.
Was *** Back when I was young and innocent and full of hope, and charity, was the subject "values ​​and norms". The contents were similar, ethically, morally and philosophically, and so, but the lessons were tagged differently.