Okay, for those of you who've read Jtkwest's post http://forums.deeperblue.net/spearo-board/77562-spearfishing-morality-ethics.html you'll know that trying to have an ethical discussion often turns into a slugfest...primarily because people discuss the same problem from many different ethical standpoints and argue more about ethical viewpoints than the issue on hand...so (as a philosophy guy) I've tried to organize the debate a little better.
Question: Is spearfishing ethical/moral?
Instructions:
1. Pick a philosophical position and agree/disagree with one of the answers, support your position if you like. IDENTIFY THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT YOU HAVE CHOSEN!
2. Narrow your comments to that particular ethical viewpoint (so don't pick utilitarianism and then go on to talk about people having a bad motive...and if you pick Kantian ethics don't start talking about negative impacts on the environment).
3. Also...if you disagree with someone, you must argue based ONLY on the viewpoint they have chosen. This will keep people discussing the real issue and not a disagreement over which school of thought is best.
4. Also please realize that there is usually no correct answer, hence why most philosophies can have different answers, depending on someone's personal interpretation of the facts.
REMEMBER: The reason that they are called ethical discussions is that people have been discussing them for thousands of years and have still not come up with a single answer --> so don't get mad if someone disagrees with you and turn it into a personal or political disagreement. If you really want to change their mind PROVE them wrong discussing only the viewpoint at issue and citing facts as to why one interpretation is clearly superior to the other.
Philosophical Viewpoints:
1. Utilitarianism:
Basic Viewpoint: What is efficient and serves a purpose is moral.
Answer:
a. Spearfishing is good: Of all the methods of fishing spearfishing is the more efficient way to catch only the fish you intend to eat, and no others. As it provides food while having the smallest negative impact on the environment, it is both efficient and serves a purpose, therefore it is moral.
b. Spearfishing is bad: Of all the methods of fishing spearfishing is the most inefficient to provide food for a large community. In order to believe this you must also believe that the negative impacts on the environment from such other fishing methods as commercial draggers (net fishing) and commercial long liner's is minimal and will have no longterm impact, because destroying your future food source would be inefficient.
2. Kantian Ethics:
Basic Viewpoint: What you do with for a good motive because you believe it is your duty to do it, is moral...even if that action has a negative outcome. Motive is all that matters, Effects do not matter (so do not discuss them.
Answer: Since this is an individualistic philosophy, I will have to treat spearfishermen as one group...therefore the moral that over 50% of them have will be the moral for the entire group.
a. Spearfishing is good because most spearfishermen spear for a good purpose. As all people have a duty to preserve their lives and feed themselves or their families...spearfishing, as it is done with a good motive to fulfill a duty, is moral.
b. Spearfishing is bad because most spearfishermen spear for a bad purpose. They desire to kill the fish because they enjoy killing things and enjoy being bad people.
3. Judaeo-Christian Fundamentalism:
Basic Viewpoint: God placed man above all the other animals and told him to use them for food.
Answer:
a. Spearfishing is good because God told us we had the right to eat animals, and what God says has to be moral.
b. There is no way to find this immoral, unless you have a different religious belief but as I am ignorant of most other religions I will refrain from discussing them here.
4. Legalism:
Basic Viewpoint: What is legal is moral
Answer: This is a more or less individualistic philosophy...therefore, for this issue we will assume that what more than 50% of the world says is legal is moral.
a. Spearfishing is moral because more than 50% of the world says it is legal.
b. Spearfishing is immoral because more than 50% of the world says it is illegal.
5. Environmentalism:
Basic Viewpoint: Humans may co-exist as part of the food chain (although not necessarily at the top) and so long as they do not damage the environment more than is necessary for their survival.
Pure Environmentalism: Humans must exist in a natural state (ergo society, cars, roads, etc...are all immoral because they are unnatural)
Qualified Environmentalism: Humans may exist as an advanced part of nature but must only injure nature when, and to the extent to which, it is absolutely necessary as part of their development.
Answer: That would depend on which tenant you choose to follow:
a. Spearfishing is moral because while spearfishing people become part of the food chain and exist as creatures of nature. (Remember that even cavemen used spears and may other animals use tools to catch their food).
b. Spearfishing is immoral
1. because killing fish is not necessary to our survival (we can survive on plants alone...this is assuming it is less immoral to kill a plant, which most environmentalists seem to agree upon).
Or
2. eating fish is necessary to our survival, but spearfishing has a negative impact on the environment that is more injurious than is necessary.
6. Egalitarianism:
Basic Viewpoint: Everyone and everything should be on equal footing.
Answer:
a. Spearfishing is moral because it puts people on equal footing with the fish.
b. Spearfishing is immoral because it does not place people on equal footing with the fish.
7. Relativism:
Basic Viewpoint: Whether something is moral or not depends on the culture of a particular society.
Answer: This is another more or less individual philosophy...therefore the question is whether most societies on Earth view it as moral/immoral.
a. Spearfishing is moral because most societies on earth believe it is moral.
b. Spearfishing is immoral because most societies on earth believe it is immoral.
There are many other schools of ethics but these are many of the major ones. Nietzschean ethics not included because to discuss them would be too nihilistic...they basically promote a viewpoint that morals are nonexistent. --> I understand this is not giving Nietzche his full credit so for those fans of his....sorry.
For a little fun if people want to break up all the serious talk, discuss these schools of thought.
Hedonism: Killing the fish feels good so it is good.
Pacifism: We should hug the fish.
Existentialism: Killing the fish is killing yourself.
Budhism: Killing the fish is killing one of your ancestors.
Platonic Ethics: The fish is only one copy made from a mold (the Form) that you cannot kill...so we can always make more.
Freudian: You kill the fish because you have conflicting feelings towards your mother.
ENJOY AND PLAY NICE :blackeye
Question: Is spearfishing ethical/moral?
Instructions:
1. Pick a philosophical position and agree/disagree with one of the answers, support your position if you like. IDENTIFY THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT YOU HAVE CHOSEN!
2. Narrow your comments to that particular ethical viewpoint (so don't pick utilitarianism and then go on to talk about people having a bad motive...and if you pick Kantian ethics don't start talking about negative impacts on the environment).
3. Also...if you disagree with someone, you must argue based ONLY on the viewpoint they have chosen. This will keep people discussing the real issue and not a disagreement over which school of thought is best.
4. Also please realize that there is usually no correct answer, hence why most philosophies can have different answers, depending on someone's personal interpretation of the facts.
REMEMBER: The reason that they are called ethical discussions is that people have been discussing them for thousands of years and have still not come up with a single answer --> so don't get mad if someone disagrees with you and turn it into a personal or political disagreement. If you really want to change their mind PROVE them wrong discussing only the viewpoint at issue and citing facts as to why one interpretation is clearly superior to the other.
Philosophical Viewpoints:
1. Utilitarianism:
Basic Viewpoint: What is efficient and serves a purpose is moral.
Answer:
a. Spearfishing is good: Of all the methods of fishing spearfishing is the more efficient way to catch only the fish you intend to eat, and no others. As it provides food while having the smallest negative impact on the environment, it is both efficient and serves a purpose, therefore it is moral.
b. Spearfishing is bad: Of all the methods of fishing spearfishing is the most inefficient to provide food for a large community. In order to believe this you must also believe that the negative impacts on the environment from such other fishing methods as commercial draggers (net fishing) and commercial long liner's is minimal and will have no longterm impact, because destroying your future food source would be inefficient.
2. Kantian Ethics:
Basic Viewpoint: What you do with for a good motive because you believe it is your duty to do it, is moral...even if that action has a negative outcome. Motive is all that matters, Effects do not matter (so do not discuss them.
Answer: Since this is an individualistic philosophy, I will have to treat spearfishermen as one group...therefore the moral that over 50% of them have will be the moral for the entire group.
a. Spearfishing is good because most spearfishermen spear for a good purpose. As all people have a duty to preserve their lives and feed themselves or their families...spearfishing, as it is done with a good motive to fulfill a duty, is moral.
b. Spearfishing is bad because most spearfishermen spear for a bad purpose. They desire to kill the fish because they enjoy killing things and enjoy being bad people.
3. Judaeo-Christian Fundamentalism:
Basic Viewpoint: God placed man above all the other animals and told him to use them for food.
Answer:
a. Spearfishing is good because God told us we had the right to eat animals, and what God says has to be moral.
b. There is no way to find this immoral, unless you have a different religious belief but as I am ignorant of most other religions I will refrain from discussing them here.
4. Legalism:
Basic Viewpoint: What is legal is moral
Answer: This is a more or less individualistic philosophy...therefore, for this issue we will assume that what more than 50% of the world says is legal is moral.
a. Spearfishing is moral because more than 50% of the world says it is legal.
b. Spearfishing is immoral because more than 50% of the world says it is illegal.
5. Environmentalism:
Basic Viewpoint: Humans may co-exist as part of the food chain (although not necessarily at the top) and so long as they do not damage the environment more than is necessary for their survival.
Pure Environmentalism: Humans must exist in a natural state (ergo society, cars, roads, etc...are all immoral because they are unnatural)
Qualified Environmentalism: Humans may exist as an advanced part of nature but must only injure nature when, and to the extent to which, it is absolutely necessary as part of their development.
Answer: That would depend on which tenant you choose to follow:
a. Spearfishing is moral because while spearfishing people become part of the food chain and exist as creatures of nature. (Remember that even cavemen used spears and may other animals use tools to catch their food).
b. Spearfishing is immoral
1. because killing fish is not necessary to our survival (we can survive on plants alone...this is assuming it is less immoral to kill a plant, which most environmentalists seem to agree upon).
Or
2. eating fish is necessary to our survival, but spearfishing has a negative impact on the environment that is more injurious than is necessary.
6. Egalitarianism:
Basic Viewpoint: Everyone and everything should be on equal footing.
Answer:
a. Spearfishing is moral because it puts people on equal footing with the fish.
b. Spearfishing is immoral because it does not place people on equal footing with the fish.
7. Relativism:
Basic Viewpoint: Whether something is moral or not depends on the culture of a particular society.
Answer: This is another more or less individual philosophy...therefore the question is whether most societies on Earth view it as moral/immoral.
a. Spearfishing is moral because most societies on earth believe it is moral.
b. Spearfishing is immoral because most societies on earth believe it is immoral.
There are many other schools of ethics but these are many of the major ones. Nietzschean ethics not included because to discuss them would be too nihilistic...they basically promote a viewpoint that morals are nonexistent. --> I understand this is not giving Nietzche his full credit so for those fans of his....sorry.
For a little fun if people want to break up all the serious talk, discuss these schools of thought.
Hedonism: Killing the fish feels good so it is good.
Pacifism: We should hug the fish.
Existentialism: Killing the fish is killing yourself.
Budhism: Killing the fish is killing one of your ancestors.
Platonic Ethics: The fish is only one copy made from a mold (the Form) that you cannot kill...so we can always make more.
Freudian: You kill the fish because you have conflicting feelings towards your mother.
ENJOY AND PLAY NICE :blackeye
Last edited: