Originally Posted by 5x5
This is also an extreme stance on animal keeping in general. Ethics are not universal and vary among people and culture.
Now I may not be an ethical scholar or anything of the sort, but does this not seem like a dangerous proposition about the universal applicability of ethical notions? The implication of the notion ethics and morality are dependent upon culture/time/location is that there is no universal ethical code, and we must always respect the ethical codes of others outside of our personal scope of understanding.
The problem I see is that the assertion that we should always respect the ethics and morals of another culture is in itself an implied universal moral absolute.
An ethical judgment cannot both confirm and deny a maxim at the same time - this sort of contradiction devoid the entire concept of credibility.
As tempting as it may be to say "Not my culture, not my ethics, no problem", this sort of "solution" is merely a cop out to avoid trying to discover an underlying universal answer.