Kick Kennedy described the event as "normal" in an interview with Town & Country all the way back in December 2012 – years before her father ran for office.
Can you keep a protected species part found on the beach?
In some cases, yes, you may keep the part. You may collect and keep any bones, teeth, or ivory from a non-ESA listed marine mammal found on a beach or land within one-quarter mile of an ocean, bay, or estuary. You may not collect parts from a carcass or parts with soft tissues attached.
Any marine mammal bones, teeth, or ivory that you collect must be identified and registered with the nearest NOAA Fisheries Regional Office. You may contact the appropriate Stranding Network Coordinator in your region for assistance. Marine mammal parts collected in this manner may not be bought or sold.
A dead marine mammal with soft tissue is a stranded animal and you should report it to the nearest NOAA Fisheries Stranding Network Coordinator so that the animal may be sampled for scientific research purposes and properly disposed of. You may not collect parts from a stranded animal.
Parts from ESA-listed species, including threatened or endangered species, may not be collected without a permit or other authorization.
Although legality and ethics do not always coincide, they often influence each other. Many laws are based on ethical principles, such as the protection of human rights, wildlife, or the environment. They reflect a societal consensus that actions that violate these principles are both unethical and should be illegal.
In this case, RFK Jr. most likely violated several laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which make it illegal to disturb, remove, or possess any part of a whale, even if it’s dead, without a permit. This is not “normal” behavior.
You just asked me for the answer, so in this case, you! Your second sentence does imply that you are, as the “not even X, let alone Y” implies that to reach Y you must pass X.
Please answer the question: Why is it ethically neutral to intentionally expose a child (he wasn’t passing by, he found out it happened and drove there with his daughter) to such things on a day-to-day basis?
Its not my onus to answer that, that’s akin to trying to prove a negative. As the one making the claim, you are supposed to try to prove it. How is exposure to a whale carcass unethical?
Because exposing children to traumatic things can cause psychological issues and watching someone carve up a whale with a chainsaw is pretty damn traumatic for a normal child.
Nothing wrong with it if they were collected ethically. Would you find it odd that arborists collect tree trunk slices?
Is it ethical to drive down to the beach with your kid, cut off a whale’s head with a chainsaw and drive it home in your car?
I doubt it’s even legal, let alone ethical.
From the article:
It does not sound legal.
From NOAA.gov
Edit: Great job by an environmental attorney…
That act in itself is ethically neutral.
Why are you implying that legality has any impact on the ethics of the situation?
Although legality and ethics do not always coincide, they often influence each other. Many laws are based on ethical principles, such as the protection of human rights, wildlife, or the environment. They reflect a societal consensus that actions that violate these principles are both unethical and should be illegal.
In this case, RFK Jr. most likely violated several laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which make it illegal to disturb, remove, or possess any part of a whale, even if it’s dead, without a permit. This is not “normal” behavior.
What makes you the arbiter of what is ethical?
I’m not.
Aren’t you the one that asked if it was ethical? Did you not want an answer?
Sure. Why is it “ethically neutral” to expose a child to such things on a regular basis? Again, this was supposedly a day-to-day occurrence.
You just asked me for the answer, so in this case, you! Your second sentence does imply that you are, as the “not even X, let alone Y” implies that to reach Y you must pass X.
Please answer the question: Why is it ethically neutral to intentionally expose a child (he wasn’t passing by, he found out it happened and drove there with his daughter) to such things on a day-to-day basis?
Its not my onus to answer that, that’s akin to trying to prove a negative. As the one making the claim, you are supposed to try to prove it. How is exposure to a whale carcass unethical?
Because exposing children to traumatic things can cause psychological issues and watching someone carve up a whale with a chainsaw is pretty damn traumatic for a normal child.
Let me guess: “Prove that it’s traumatic.”
Nope, it’s pointing out that you’re moving goalposts.