Ethical Question Time: Wild Caught or Captive Breed?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I had no idea that c.nanoluteus were on the list. I have a pair of f2s (I think) in my 120 that has recently started breeding, I'm setting up a 40b for them to have by themselves so that they can spawn in peace.
 
Exactly. Ethics are completely subjective and can be approached from so many different angles.

But it does provide for an interesting discussion.

Yes which was the reason for the thread. There hasn't really been on good debates lately and I'm glad everyone has responded politely. It's always interesting hearing different opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HN1
I want the Sulphur Molly from the CARES list.
Anyway, I support wild caught fish in moderation to increase endangered populations by captive breeding.
 
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.
 
The biggest problem is stupidity. Without intelligence, morals and ethics play only a microscopic part.

I would change the word "stupidity" to "ignorance". Until you are aware of what you don't know, you cannot seek the knowledge you lack.
 
MrPillow said:
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.

I was describing the "state of affairs" of ethics and morality, more so than my opinion of the topic at the time. Today, I see ethics as a personal lens of morality in situations. In some cases, there is a strong majority and laws are created in favor of a exhibiting a behavior or repressing a behavior. However, these laws rarely are universal and are continually debated, even among like-minded people.

As much as it would be a nice little bow on a pretty little package, universal ethics is not achievable in my opinion. Humans are in a class of their peers trying to determine what is right and without unanimous support for every issue of morality, ethics by definition are not universal.
 
Just because it does not seem immediately attainable given the current situation, does not mean it should be dismissed as the long term desirable reality.

Just my opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom