The gun you see below…
…. was duly taken from its owner for illegal use: shooting fish (though not in a barrel, which is even more unethical). A Finney County Game Warden seized the 9 mm handgun because it was “being used to take fish in Garden City,” Kansas game wardens said.
You would expect officials in Finney County to be protective of fish, wouldn’t you?
The wardens issued written violations, reminding citizens that “firearms are not a legal means to take fish.”
Ethicist Chris McDonald, who holds forth on his Business Ethics Blog, has a provocative post on the right to know what you’re eating on another of his blogs, the Food Ethics Blog. I have no quarrel with the main point of his post, which I recommend that you read it here.
A related point in the article, however, not involving ingredients but food preparation, caused me to stop and ponder. Dr. McDonald writes…
“… imagine again that you’re a waiter or waitress. As you set a plate of food down in front of a customer, the customer asks: “Were any ‘minorities’ involved in the production of this food? Do you have any foreigners working in the kitchen?” Appalled, you stammer: “Excuse me?!” The customer continues, “I don’t like immigrants, and I don’t like the idea of them touching my food. I have the right to know what I’m eating!” Does this customer have the right to that information? Most of us, I think, would say no, of course not. She might see that information as really important — important to letting her live her life the way she wants to — but few of us would agree that anyone else is obligated to help her live out her racist values.”
I think the customer’s request for information regarding who is preparing one’s food is a valid one. Continue reading
Many readers disagreed with Ethics Alarms on its verdict in the women’s track and field tournament story, where the championship-winning pole vault was disqualified after the opposing coach complained that the vaulter was wearing a bracelet, which was specifically banned by the rules. I argued that the rule was clear and unambiguous, that the coaches had the duty of making sure each competitor followed it, and that simply pretending that the rule didn’t exist because the result of enforcing it was harsh was not an ethical option for the referees. The coach who flagged the rules was well within ethical limits by making sure that his team, which obeyed the rules, wasn’t defeated by a team that didn’t, even if the rule violated didn’t help it succeed.
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to explain why this recent scenario, in a very different sport, should be looked at differently from the track meet, or not. Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 