Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New listings
New media comments
New resources
New calendar events
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Calendar
New events
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Classifieds
New listings
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping
Another bizarre beekeeping rule ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Welcome to NZ Beekeepers+
Would you like to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave Black" data-source="post: 6975" data-attributes="member: 200"><p>Hold on, back up the bus. ‘Rules’ and ‘Ethics’ are very different things, and actually it’s ethics that inform rules, not the other way around. Ethics are the higher order here, but the same ethical principle could create quite different, even contradictory, rules.</p><p></p><p>Without falling down the Top-bar rabbit hole it’s a case that illustrates that difference. The ethical principle is merely that it is good to be able diagnose disease correctly and therefore hive construction that enables that is ‘good’. To regulate that good using Law we might therefore make a rule that combs have to be inspectable, but we might make a rule that frames have to be in a transparent tower, or that honey has to be sniffed, or whatever. To say that combs must be removable (whatever ‘removable’ means) is not an ethical principle. Rules are changeable, bound by circumstance, by expediency; ethics immutable. Rules have penalties, ethics don’t. Ethics are better thought of as a process used for reaching moral (‘correct’) decisions, not a decision itself.</p><p></p><p>If you want a set of rules head down the ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ track and revise it every year/month/day, but start with a set of coherent ethical principles.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave Black, post: 6975, member: 200"] Hold on, back up the bus. ‘Rules’ and ‘Ethics’ are very different things, and actually it’s ethics that inform rules, not the other way around. Ethics are the higher order here, but the same ethical principle could create quite different, even contradictory, rules. Without falling down the Top-bar rabbit hole it’s a case that illustrates that difference. The ethical principle is merely that it is good to be able diagnose disease correctly and therefore hive construction that enables that is ‘good’. To regulate that good using Law we might therefore make a rule that combs have to be inspectable, but we might make a rule that frames have to be in a transparent tower, or that honey has to be sniffed, or whatever. To say that combs must be removable (whatever ‘removable’ means) is not an ethical principle. Rules are changeable, bound by circumstance, by expediency; ethics immutable. Rules have penalties, ethics don’t. Ethics are better thought of as a process used for reaching moral (‘correct’) decisions, not a decision itself. If you want a set of rules head down the ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ track and revise it every year/month/day, but start with a set of coherent ethical principles. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What type of honey is New Zealand famous for?
Post reply
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping
Another bizarre beekeeping rule ?
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…