Philosophy Discussion Forums

American Taliban officials destroy huge trove of rare cultural and historical art in Denver.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013 ... enver.html

• "Before the crush, Fish and Wildlife officials showed off thousands of confiscated ivory tusks, statues, ceremonial bowls, masks and ornaments.... Thousands of ivory items accumulated over the past 25 years were piled into a large pyramid-shaped mound, then dumped into a steel rock crusher that pulverized it all into dust and tiny chips...."

I suspect most of the items were pieces of 'tourist tat' rather than great art. Not long ago the Kenyans burnt 5 tons of ivory. Seizing and destroying ivory has the desired effect of decreasing the incentive to poach and carve ivory into tourist trinkets - and no piece of 'art' is worth an elephants life.

Keithprosser3 wrote:I suspect most of the items were pieces of 'tourist tat' rather than great art. Not long ago the Kenyans burnt 5 tons of ivory. Seizing and destroying ivory has the desired effect of decreasing the incentive to poach and carve ivory into tourist trinkets - and no piece of 'art' is worth an elephants life.

I couldn't agree more but it would be so much better if it were possible to pulverize all the poachers and buyers as well.

I agree with Keith and JK, but it's still, in principle, an interesting moral dilemma.

What if items have been acquired by immoral means, which we would like to discourage, but those items are culturally or scientifically valuable? An example: there's a fascinating little museum close to where I live containing the private collection of one of those rich old Victorian adventurer types who used to go to Africa and shoot and stuff everything that moves. It's got some amazing specimens of all kinds of big game, including elephants. Apparently it's a great resource for researchers. But should we really be destroying it, in recognition of the fact that we now see this kind of behaviour as wrong? In this case, my instinctive answer is "no". Mostly because the killing happened in a different era with different views on this kind of thing. But why should that make a difference?

Steve3007 wrote:But should we really be destroying it, in recognition of the fact that we now see this kind of behaviour as wrong? In this case, my instinctive answer is "no". Mostly because the killing happened in a different era with different views on this kind of thing. But why should that make a difference?

The difference is by allowing poachers to continue making profits soon there will be nothing left to shoot even with a camera. Ever see what an elephant carnage looks like when poachers get through with a herd?

If there is a "moral dilemma" it's in not immediately executing every poacher on sight.

it would be so much better if it were possible to pulverize all the poachers and buyers as well.

If there is a "moral dilemma" it's in not immediately executing every poacher on sight.

The Kenya Wildlife Service do use lethal force. m.news24.com/kenya/National/News/Two-su ... a-20131113

Keithprosser3 wrote:Seizing and destroying ivory has the desired effect of decreasing the incentive to poach and carve ivory into tourist trinkets

No it doesn't because by that time the poachers have been paid.

Keithprosser3 wrote:and no piece of 'art' is worth an elephants life.

And burning the ivory makes the elephant's death completely pointless instead of just partly pointless.

JKlint:

If there is a "moral dilemma" it's in not immediately executing every poacher on sight.

You're probably right. I was just trying to wring some philosophy out of the subject by seeing if I could spot any genuinely difficult moral dilemmas.

I guess at least some of the poachers, if they could think of it, might use the same kind of argument that is used against us rich westerners when we worry about developing economies becoming too rich and increasing their carbon emissions. They might say that we started our poaching and emitting a long time ago and now we've suddenly decided that these things are wrong so nobody else should be allowed to do it. Of course, when we did it, since it hadn't been done on a large scale before, the species weren't yet endangered and the carbon-dioxide wasn't yet too high. So it was (kind of) OK then and isn't now.

But it still might be possible to make us sound like hypocrites: "It's not fair!" they might say "You had all your fun in the Victorian times shooting stuff and riding around in steam engines, and getting rich as a result, and now, as soon as it's own turn, you tell us the rules have changed."

Steve3007 wrote:JKlint: (Nested quote removed.)


You're probably right. I was just trying to wring some philosophy out of the subject by seeing if I could spot any genuinely difficult moral dilemmas.

I guess at least some of the poachers, if they could think of it, might use the same kind of argument that is used against us rich westerners when we worry about developing economies becoming too rich and increasing their carbon emissions. They might say that we started our poaching and emitting a long time ago and now we've suddenly decided that these things are wrong so nobody else should be allowed to do it. Of course, when we did it, since it hadn't been done on a large scale before, the species weren't yet endangered and the carbon-dioxide wasn't yet too high. So it was (kind of) OK then and isn't now.

But it still might be possible to make us sound like hypocrites: "It's not fair!" they might say "You had all your fun in the Victorian times shooting stuff and riding around in steam engines, and getting rich as a result, and now, as soon as it's own turn, you tell us the rules have changed."

That's always the default position isn't it? We've done it in the past so now it's their turn. But you do the poachers too much honor in thinking that they're even thinking about it as you have! It's all about gruesome slaughters for a fast and considerable gain. That's all there's to it, profit, which becomes even more profitable the less there is to kill; supply and demand you know and demand is high in China and Russia.

But whether it's the default position or not - which is one of the most illogical and morally disgusting ever encountered - this argument or excuse you hypothetically bring forward would certainly not apply in this case.

Poachers are criminals in just about every country which still possesses a modicum of indigenous wildlife. It's citizens, I would think, would not want that to be deciminated not least because what's becoming increasingly rare also becomes that much more of a tourist attraction from which the state profits making poachers it's enemies.

So what I'm saying is that your default argument, in this case, however conjectural, is not even remotely applicable.

BTW hunting in the Victorian times and later was not considered poaching because there was nothing overtly illegal about it. Those who subscribed to trophy hunting - big white man with a gun - were usually the low life bastards who were already rich!

Ami,

How is this the "American Taliban," did you misread "tourists" or something?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To all,

I really don't see how destroying art is going to discourage the future creation of art, regardless of the medium.

I agree that elephants are worth more than their tusks cut off and carved into art. I just don't see how destroying the art helps.

If anything a lack of ivory art in the black market increases the demand and value of ivory. If people want to discourage poaching, a more effective approach would be to make fake ivory art and sell it as the real thing, inflate the market with fake crap. Shame campaigns work relatively effectively for end consumers.

wanabe:

Clearly the rationale behind the destruction is that the people who bought the art paid quite a lot of money for it so if you destroy it you leave them out of pocket. This leaves them with the expectation that they will be out of pocket again the next time they buy the offending art. The hope is that this will deter them from buying it in future and reduce the market.

You make an interesting point in proposing that the precise opposite strategy might have the same effect, but I'm not convinced. Flooding the market with fake ivory will surely just create a demand for people who can tell the difference (I presume it would always be possible to tell one way or another) and do little to damage the desire for "authenticity". But I guess it depends on the motivation of most buyers - is their prime motive the authenticity of the ivory or the beauty of the art?

wanabe wrote:Ami,

How is this the "American Taliban," did you misread "tourists" or something?

"The Buddhas of Bamiwam were two 6th century monumental statues of standing buddha carved into the side of a cliff in the Bamwam valley in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan, 230 km northwest of Kabul.... Built in 507 AD, (smaller), and 554 AD, (larger) the statues represented the classic blended style of Gandhara art. ... They were dynamited and destroyed in March 2001 by the Taliban... International opinion strongly condemned the destruction of the Buddhas...."

"Buddhas of Bamiyan", Wiki

I remember that well. Blowing up 1500 year old artistic treasures out of religious spite is not the same as burning a ton of badly carved 'souvenir-of-kenya' table mats to help save a living species from extinction.

Ami,

That's a different article than the one in the first post. Even still what makes it American taliban?

@wanabe, I think Ami is asserting the Americans destruction of some ivory trinkets is no different from the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiwam.

@Ami, Americans may be guilty of many genuine sins of omission and commission, but I think that on this occasion they did the right thing.