What makes you say it's a "one size fits all" solution? Should the author not write their own opinion from their own ethical context, but rather keep it to themselves, since other cultures might disagree?

The issue OP seems to have is that while “X damages the environment” is a claim that science is reasonably well equipped to answer, “X is unethical” is not.

While scientists claiming that farming octopuses is damaging to the environment falls within reasonable scope of their work and expertise, them claiming that it is unethical may not be so, yet the author is lumping both together in the same introductory sentence.

>Should the author not write their own opinion from their own ethical context, but rather keep it to themselves, since other cultures might disagree?

Yes.

At a minimum, they shouldn't state their "own opinion from their own ethical context" as some kind of universal fact: "it's not only deeply unethical (...) scientists say".

What earthly purpose would that serve? They're scientists; they subscribe to a moral system. Subscribing to an ethical system involves arguing it through rhetoric and reasoning. Scientists are only expected to be politically neutral; they're not Uatu the Watcher.

The problem here is the misleading implication that there is a singular set of correct ethics, hidden behind a false appeal to scientific authority.

Don't the vast majority of people think there is a singular set of correct ethics? Why do you think otherwise?

The mere fact that there is wide disagreement about some ethical questions doesn't help the argument (as some people think), because there are all sorts of very controversial questions where it's still commonly accepted that these questions have a correct answer.

>Don't the vast majority of people think there is a singular set of correct ethics? Why do you think otherwise?

No, the vast majority of people don't think there's a singular set of correct ethics, and especially not one where "eating octopus is unethical" is a tenet.

> Don't the vast majority of people think there is a singular set of correct ethics?

I agree that maybe most people believe in objective morality, but moral relativism exists and I don't think that it's so unpopular that it's insignificant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

>What earthly purpose would that serve? They're scientists; they subscribe to a moral system.

The moral system is unrelated to their scientific advice.

It also doesn't cover the "don't eat X animals" part, as even for their society (e.g. USA) that's debatable ethically, and not something the generally acceptable moral system holds.

Well... ethics in the wild definitely does vary wildly by time, place and person. But, ethics in the wild usually gets applied to everyone too. When we think sexist legislation (say, women can't vote) is wrong, we usually think it's wrong for everyone and that the people/places that do it should stop.

Pluralism is unstoppable, but so is our instinct to create/defend/assemble a common ethic.

>When we think sexist legislation (say, women can't vote) is wrong, we usually think it's wrong for everyone and that the people/places that do it should stop.

Yes, but we ourselves think it -- e.g. we extend our ethics to everybody.

Others think such legislation is ethical, and consider us unethical, corrupt, etc (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

Ethics are completely arbitrary.

The article comes from a particular background. From said background, the espousal of "unethical" is understandable.

Whether you consider the ingestion of octopus to be unethical or not depends entirely on your own definition of ethics.

> Ethics are completely arbitrary.

That cannot possibly be true if ethics is based on what causes suffering / well-being.

At some point, ethics comes down to "whose suffering/well-being do you prioritise when you're presented with a bunch of shitty options", and that's where everyone eventually disagrees.

I don't think this is actually true in the vast majority of day-to-day ethical decisions, although there are cases where it's certainly true.

I'm fairly confident that many more unethical actions, even subjectively defined (i.e. from each individual observer's pov), are the result of ignorance and apathy than actual differences of opinion regarding ethics.

Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being.

At best, it takes those things, along with many others, into account (and usually from the side of a specific community, not across the board).

Specific ethics have been adhered that caused tons of suffering to people (The Spanish Inquisition was a protector and enforcer of certain ethics, for example. Homophobia was also based on ethics, and when slavery was a thing in the US, it was totally compatible with the Southern ethics at the time -- you could be a well respected gentleman considered totally ethical and own 1000s of slaves -- that you also beat to work and so on).

|Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being.

Ehh, where we've landed in contemporary, normative-esque based ethics, it kind of is. Where you think ethics gets its imperative force depends largely (as you mentioned) on your community and environment. Western philosophy has however been shaped enough by utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc., to the point that they all to a degree recognize suffering and/or the need to reduce it.

Peter Singer's summary of WH Leckly's 'ever expanding circle of responsibility' is a good example of this.

'"...Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle... includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world."' -- https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm

Singer suggests that "Our century is the first in which it has been possible to speak of global responsibility and a global community." If an ever expanding circle of responsibility includes reducing suffering on a global level-- and sentience being the compelling criteria that it is-- including animal suffering vs. human culinary pleasure/preference will definitely continue to be relevant in any ethical/philosophic discussions moving forward.

It's interesting that one of the logical ends to reducing suffering as much as possible ultimately leads to expanding the circle of responsibility to future generation and those not yet alive to even suffer. This is where environmentalism and regard for those ahead of our decisions comes into play.

Maybe you're right that ethics isn't entirely based on suffering / well-being, but that's largely where it is headed.

To say ethics are arbitrary is to say that there is no reasoning behind them, which is basically the opposite of what ethics truly are.

Ethics are commonly a "system of moral principles", said system and principles being the reasoning behind ethics.

I'm assuming what you are trying to say is that "ethics are not absolute", which has strong arguments; however, I think the critique of the use of "unethical" is partially in agreement with my assumption of your first point ("ethics are not absolute"). Assuming ethics are not absolute, then labeling something as unethical in a blanket statement would not always hold true.

I would suggest simply prefacing the statement with "I/many believe" would sit more comfortably.

>Ethics are completely arbitrary.

Well, I'd say adjusted/evolved culturally/historically to help steer communities, improve/constrain certain societal aspects, but yes, it's not like they are physical laws.