Travel Ethics

Not sure if it's an ethics issue but...we are still going to Paris dispite terror attacks that have affected tourism. It's the best way I know to say f-u to the terrorists.

I note you say "ethics" (moral principle that govern one's behavior), not etiquette (or polite behavior).

Ethics would be things like not walking out on your hotel or restaurant bill. Would ethics include not bringing drugs that might be legal in the US into a country that bans them? What about visiting prostitutes in a country where it is legal? Should an American woman visiting a Muslim country wear a Burka?

Does anyone consider it unethical for a woman to go topless on a French beach?

I think most of us would be pretty ethical in our travels. I'd rather talk about Travel Etiquette.

Tend to think is that behavior and ethics are related. For me, I am a guest and I expect myself to accept and adhere to the standards of my host - the culture of the country I am visiting. I do not expect my cultural background to trump the cultural I am visiting. The most obvious example is those that constantly asking about visiting houses of worship in shorts and t-shirts. "Well, maybe I can get away with it if no one is checking at the door." Ethics is basically knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing right.

What about someone who get's a photo radar ticket in France and considers not paying it 'cause they're never going back.

What about someone who insist on not carrying their passport at all time when the countries laws demand it?

I completely agree with Frank. I think I should try to conform to the culture I am visiting. That extends to obeying the laws where I am. I get annoyed at the number of people who post here complaining about speeding tickets and calling them "scams". No, they broke the law - perhaps unknowingly, but they did - and they should accept the consequences, not play the victim. I learn something new every time I travel, whether it is about the area I am visiting, the people who live there, or about myself and how I react to things. One thing I have learned is that my way of doing things is not the only way, or the best way, or the "right" way. The people where I am traveling do things the "right" way there, too.

To me, ethical travel boils down to respect.

When I'm traveling, I view it as visiting someone's house -- not their playground. I believe that you should know the mores and customs of those people and adhere to them as closely as you can. I believe you should have respect for their beliefs, even if those aren't the same as yours. Don't belittle people because their ways are different than yours.

More than anything, when I travel, I try to be an ambassador: not of my nation or my state, but of mankind as a whole. I don't want to be seen as an American or a Washingtonian, but as a human being. I want others to see in me what is good about the entirety of mankind. I want them to believe in the decency, kindness and respect of other humans. If by small acts I can accomplish this -- if I can make one person smile or feel better -- then I believe I have lived up to my own code of ethics, be it at home or in another nation.

-- Mike Beebe

When I think of the ethics of travel, I think of situations where travelers might take advantage (perhaps unwittingly) of locals who have less than they do. For example, is it ethical to travel to someplace like Dubai and stay in a hotel that may have been built by people who are effectively enslaved? Is it ethical to travel to some tropical location because it's trendy, when a few years from now it'll no longer be trendy, and the local economy will be stuck with a bunch of tourist infrastructure that's no longer being used? Is it ethical to treat traditional ways of life as tourist attractions? Is it ethical to go on "voluntourism" trips that may do more harm than good? Is it ethical to haggle with an impoverished street vendor when you can afford the price they're asking and they need the money more than you do? Is it ethical to take a luxury train in Southeast Asia that seems designed to invoke nostaligia for the colonial era?

When I think of ethics and traveling it pertains to whether I would my money in a place with a repressive government that would benefit from my trip. Or, should I be hopeful that it helps some of their citizens who work in tourism?
I am debating if I should take a trip to Myanmar presently.

When I think of ethical travel, I think of not wanting to spend my travel dollars if it may be condoning bad behavior. For example, I will not travel to Cuba until the people that had to flee and lost their assets feel they can go back safely and receive compensation for what they lost.

I have the same ethics abroad as I do at home. And I think that is an individual thing. My ethics may be different that someone else and vice versa. Someplace I may choose not to go to for personal or ethical reasons, may be just fine to someone else.

Doing an web search of "ethical tourism definition" displays websites including:
http://www.travelmatters.co.uk/ethical-tourism/
that seem to be more focused on travel that does not exploit or at least minimizes the damage to the local environment and people.

The UK ethical-tourism website includes discussion of travel dilemmas such as:

Should I go on a cruise?

Should I haggle for goods?

Should I buy animal souvenirs?

Should I ride an elephant?

and even the question: Should I Fly?

I for one wouldn't do a trip where the objective is to shoot a lion with a bow and arrow. And I wouldn't lighten my pack to bring home souvenirs by dumping old underwear. Given that each of our value systems may be different, the question of ethics is one of personal morality and some of you will want to ride the elephant or haggle for better prices. And a common forum topic is tipping or not tipping and how much to avoid disrupting the local tourist economy.

Oh gee, I guess I am basically a "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you" kind of guy. Be kind, and friendly, and helpful, and interested. I am not a utopian or perfectionist, nor a nit-picker about small things or small misunderstandings. Politely try to fix big things and big misunderstandings. Make other people's day a little bit better, not a little bit worse.
By the way Edgar, while I have never actually done this, what would be wrong with dumping old underwear or other items you no longer need or want, in order to free up room and weight for new purchases or souvenirs?

...what would be wrong with dumping old underwear or other items you no longer need or want, in order to free up room and weight for new purchases or souvenirs?

Landfill waste disposal is an environmental challenge. Dumping your used underwear in Europe is a landfill issue.

The European Commission recognizes this challenge and does not intend to do away with it's European Environment Agency. See the European Commission's statements on waste and landfills:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/

The European Union's approach to waste management is based on the
"waste hierarchy" which sets the following priority order when shaping
waste policy and managing waste at the operational level: prevention,
(preparing for) reuse, recycling, recovery and, as the least preferred
option, disposal (which includes landfilling and incineration without
energy recovery).

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm

According to the waste management hierarchy, landfilling is the least
preferable option and should be limited to the necessary minimum.

If ethical tourism includes respecting the local values, we need to respect Europe's desire to protect their environment by minimizing our impact on the local environment. Avoid waste and take your underwear home.

So it's okay for the locals to throw away their old underwear, but not the temporary locals?????

Given the subject of "ethical travel", taking old underwear and dumping them in Europe to make room for stuff is not in the spirit of "take only photographs, leave foot prints".

If you want to get that environmentally sensitive, the mere act of flying to Europe leaves a serious impact on the atmosphere and global temperatures. So I guess none of us should be traveling at all.

Back to old underwear...when I'm overseas I'm my paying local taxes (in some places very hefty) for governments to deal with waste issues, so for me there is no ethical dilemma; morally or legally. No doubt there are also Europeans disposing of the undies while passing through the US, so it all balances out in the end.

" the mere act of flying to Europe leaves a serious impact on the atmosphere and global temperatures."

Very true. Is it the ethical thing to do, then, to buy carbon offsets? If someone flies and does not, are they then behaving in an unethical way?

When I saw this topic, the first thing that came to mind is what Michael said:

If you want to get that environmentally sensitive, the mere act of
flying to Europe leaves a serious impact on the atmosphere and global
temperatures.

I do think we have an ethical obligation to think about the impact of our travel on the environment and how to minimize it.

But I also think we have an ethical obligation to use our travels in some small way to make the world a better place. For me that means interacting in a kind and thoughtful way with the people I meet. It means respecting the local culture, and also having reverence for the places I visit. It means learning something, bringing back what I learned to share with others, and using what I learned to be a better citizen of the planet.

The first time I went to Europe (in 1969), my Swedish homestay "brother" said to me "You can always tell Americans. They are the loudest, most obnoxious people around." I didn't want to believe that. But the next group of people walking by were three American women and Per was right, they were the loudest, most obnoxious people in the square. Per and I still keep in touch and I will always remember that valuable lesson.
So to me "ethical travel" is to appreciate and learn from the cultural differences, to enjoy and blend with people you are meeting and not be the loudest, most obnoxious person around. You can't help looking like a tourist but you don't have to be act like an "ugly American."
Kathy

PS. When a friend and I went to Ireland many years ago, we blended well enough that tourists asked us for directions and we were lost at the time. Sometimes the wrong road can be the most interesting.

Yep, being mistaken for a local is always nice. Once in Edinburgh a young Scottish fellow actually stopped me to ask for directions - - and was quite embarrassed to find that I was an American.
Unfortunately sometimes Americans are still the most obnoxious people around. Usually the folks on RS tours are not that way, but I was totally astonished a couple of years ago to observe some people on my RS tour skipping out of a restaurant without paying, and later in the tour some others were brow-beating the teenage girl tending a snack bar into giving them lower than list prices on bottled water!! (In neither case was our tour director present.) It made me really embarrassed to be in the same tour group, and that kind of stuff gives Americans an awful reputation. In retrospect I wish I'd told those people off. Is there a non-confrontational way to tell people that they are being jerks?

Keep it on topic, please!

Kaeleku......I've already experienced them. And their travel ethics are different than anyone else's.

Which has us ask the question are cultural ethics similar to travel ethics?

When I travel I always pack the same ethics I use on a daily basis at home. I am genuinely interested in the "stories" of others, and one of the joys of travel is relating to others on a personal level. Whether that is a hotel maid, restaurant waiter , travel partner or tour guide/leader my goal is the same. I want to hear the perspective and experiences of others and to share mine as well. I strive to always be respectful without being a pushover. I look for the good in others without being naive or becoming a "mark". When we travel independently we choose some typically touristy sites, but always seek out other experiences which tourists might not ever consider. A good example is when we were in northern Germany we spent a day at Helgoland, and attended a superb opera with the small company in Bremen.
One disturbing lack of "ethics" I have seen on RS tours are people rudely rolling their eyes at something a guide or tour member has said. The other breach of ethics I have witnessed is when RS tour members load up their backpacks with food from the breakfast selection. It is one thing to take a banana or apple. It is quite another to pack entire lunches created out of the breakfast selection.
One of the important things to consider when you travel is the cultural differences that might seem rude or unethical, but are simply expressions of the "norm" in that culture. I have been elbowed out of the way by trekking German female senior citizens, pushed and crowded by Japanese tourists, made to wait by people who view timelines as suggestions, and sneered at by Viennese and Russian waiters. I did not take offense at any of that because I understood it was not personal just cultural.
Ironically I am way less forgiving about rude behaviors that may be considered "American" culture. Especially now in the US, it seems that decency, discretion and keeping an "inner monologue" have gone by the wayside. This is modeled for us on a daily basis from the highest positions, and is disconcerting at best. (Terrifying at worst.) I have often witnessed this sort of "America first" mentality when traveling abroad, but I am concerned that it will now become the norm rather than the exception. For that reason, I thank the Webmaster for opening this conversation. It is a good time for all of us to reflect upon how our own behaviors and personal habits may now be viewed by those we intersect with as we travel. I would hope that each of us would in this coming year of travel pack with us the deepest respect for our common humanity, the kindness and compassion to share our time and money with others who are not so fortunate and the open minds to engage in thoughtful conversations with those we meet on our travels.

I think that ethics in travel should not be that different from your ethics at home and how you live your life. You should, as someone already mentioned, treat others as you would like to be treated. That usually involves respect for the individual and for culture that you're in. I travel the NYC subway daily. At times, I am challenged to maintain my ethics and it's hard when you get attacked for a lapse. Whether its an eye roll, or a missed "pardon." or more seriously, disrespecting a holy site or a memorial you can cause offense. But is that a lack of ethics or a lack of judgement? The two can be intertwined.

When I was a teenager, we skipped out on a bill at a gasthof. It bothers me to this day, and in fact, I went back 30 plus years later to repay, but they were closed, so it still haunts. me. But I should look back probably on the entire 6 months of that trip and think about what I did and how I spent my time, what I learned, what it's meant to me over a lifetime. Have I ever skipped out on a drinks bill again? Of course not. The haunting would overwhelm me, because basically, I am an ethical person whether I am riding the NYC subway, traveling to Orlando, on a business trip to Cambridge, or walking is Scotland.

I think that one of the ways that you travel ethically is to use honorable companies to travel with. You treat your fellow travelers with respect. You travel for enjoyment, but you bring something new to your understanding of life as well. That understanding could be a better relationship with your travel partner. It could be the joy that you bring to a family member. You never know when a travel experience will enlighten or brighten your life.

I also follow the same ethics when I travel as I use at home. I deal with the "pushy" people abroad as I deal with them here. I let them go ahead of me. It is not a big deal. Who knows what stressors they are dealing with. Waiting a few minutes will not be the end of the world for me regardless of if it is here or in Europe.

The customs and traditions of the host country are always paramount and I will adhere to them. I would never dream to go into a church in Italy without my shoulders and legs covered. Not because I adhere to the faith but because I value and appreciate their faith, culture and traditions. I choose my battles here and abroad. Blatantly rip me off and I will post on TripAdvisor and on this forum. That is the same thing I would do if ripped off here at home.

But I will also not visit a country if I feel strongly about the political climate in that country, just as many Europeans are doing now with our current political climate.

Is it ethical to stay in a hotel that may have been built by people who are effectively enslaved?

Problem is, you can go down this rabbit hole forever.
Were the athletic shoes I am wearing sewn by child laborers?
What were the environmental conditions at the factory where these AAA batteries I am buying at The Dollar Store?
Does flying to Europe contribute to global warming?
Were the vegetables I am buying at the grocery store picked by migrant workers who were fairly compensated for their labor?
Should my breathing be considered adding carbon dioxide pollution to the atmosphere while extracting precious oxygen?

I recall from long ago a tongue-in-cheek bit of graffiti to the effect that for the good of the environment, everyone must make a rope from biodegradable fiber and hang themselves over an active compost pit. Then they will be truly environmentally ethical.

Just sayin.

For me, We need to know the nature of people to show some respect and for me that is the only important thing you must have when you travel.

I am among those who conduct themselves the same when traveling as they do when at home. One of my main reasons for traveling is to experience different customs and cultures and hopefully learn from them. I don't think I can say that ethics are always in the forefront of my thinking but they are part of my basic behaviors.

I try to concentrate on the areas I can control - where I spend my travel dollars, how I interact with others in a place I am visiting, how I conduct myself where ever I am.

Some of these questions raised here could easily render one paralyzed - afraid to choose anything for fear of breaching some principle or ethic.

I choose what works for me...I'll leave others to ponder those deeper questions.

As many others have posted here, I also try to practice the same ethics (or behaviour) when travelling as I do at home. I try to treat people respectfully, but also to be sensitive to the culture of the places I'm visiting. A good example would be greeting shop keepers in Paris with a "Bonjour" and a smile, which is not something I do at home. I also try to monitor the volume level of conversations with others in places like restaurants.

I've found that boorish travellers can be any nationality, and I'm sorry to say that Canadians are among them. I've personally witnessed "ugly Canadians" who complained about everything in the places they were visting. Some examples.....

• why don't the drive on the proper side of the road?
• why can't they speak English?
• why can't they do things like we do?

So much for learning something about other cultures. When I encounter people like that, it takes a supreme effort on my part to refrain from tearing a strip off them!

Most of these posts seem to confuse ethical with etiquette.

For me, ethical is, where possible, spending money on local goods and services and avoiding multi nationals. So, no Starbucks, no uber. Shop in local stores where more of your money remains in the local economy.

Try not to buy tourist tat made in China (unless you're visiting China) but buy things that are made in the country/region you're visiting.

And beware of those pervasive online services, which are ever so easy to use but end up turning those Silicon Valley millionaires into billionaires. Spread you're money around.

Like Christi, I am the same at home and traveling. What HAS influenced me is visiting so many countries/cultures which have been #1 and are no longer -- a reminder that everything runs in cycles and that even if we are told that "America is the greatest country in the history of the world" ....

Different site admission categories for different nationalities (usually meaning different races pay different prices) gets to me. This is common practice in Mexico, India, Galápagos Islands, Peru, and I'm sure many other places. I get the feeling the extra money lines corrupt people's pockets more than it supports the sites but I could be wrong. I wonder what kind of message this sends to the local population, i.e. overcharging foreigners is officially sanctioned. Also wonder how many Mexican-Americans and Indian-Americans pass for locals instead of paying the "westerner" price.

And the traffic enforcement cameras in France, Italy, etc really are a scam, the locals just need to be educated about how unreasonable and unfair the concept is.....

We have the RS philosophy of creating a better world by intercommunication (webmaster you can express it better). I don’t dismiss the concept at all.

I have visited a number of countries that treat woman abhorrently by my Western standards. Here the mere presence of a Western man and woman demonstrating through their interaction and behavior the option existent in the Western norm I believe does serve a social good. With internal social issues the RS idea has a lot of validity. Still, I can’t ever be comfortable in such an environment so such places are not high on my list to go and have "fun", but there is more to travel than having fun.

Then there are the external governmental situations. This could involve visiting a country whose government commits international crimes resulting in loss of life. There may still be a level where the RS theory works. But I think it would be at the lowest cultural level or at least through some intentionally planned activity that fosters that goal. Where I am certain the RS idea has no value would be to arrive into a non-typical tourist environment, drink Champaign, stroll the canals and watch operas. That sort of falls into the category of personal indulgence with out demonstrating any regard for life.

In both situations does my visit help to normalize or minimize what is going on? Am I giving them cover? Am I giving them money to continue the situation?

Both examples are extreme to try and make a point. What makes this difficult is where to draw the line. Like someone else stated, the rabbit hole is deep. The only thing I reject is ignoring it. Or, the; it’s worse somewhere else sort of statements. It’s worse somewhere doesn’t make it better here.

Problem is, you can go down this rabbit hole forever.
Were the athletic shoes I am wearing sewn by child laborers?
What were the environmental conditions at the factory where these AAA batteries I am buying at The Dollar Store?
Does flying to Europe contribute to global warming?
Were the vegetables I am buying at the grocery store picked by migrant workers who were fairly compensated for their labor?
Should my breathing be considered adding carbon dioxide pollution to the atmosphere while extracting precious oxygen?

So what would you say is the alternative? Not going down the "rabbit hole" at all, and not caring at all about labor exploitation or climate change? That's a coherent position, but not one that many people would find very appealing.

Thinking seriously about ethics means asking difficult questions, looking at subtle differences between the pros and cons of different situations, figuring out where to draw the line when there's no obvious black-and-white answer, and yes, maybe coming to terms with the realization that some of the things you like to do are wrong.

I guess my travel ethic is to try not be a jerk. To take it one step further, I try to learn what is considered being a jerk in the host country (even though it might not be considered rude at home) and avoid being a jerk, by local standards, as best I can.

I eat what the locals eat, avoid speaking at the top of my lungs, don't complain about the number of ice cubes in my drink, live with the lack of wash cloths in my bathroom and having to walk down the hall to use the toilet. To the extent possible, I also try to speak to them in their language (and am grateful when they help me by speaking to me in my language).

Ethics to me means doing the right thing even if no one is watching or your chances of getting caught are slim.

It is the little things, like buying a ticket for your child on the bus even though you know she could pass for being under 6. Trying to get a discount for being a student, veteran or a senior when you aren't. Taking all the small bottles of shampoo, etc. from your hotel room each day so they have to replace them each and every day. Taking any food at all from any buffet to eat later on. Sneaking that photo in the museum when the sign says not too. Sneaking into a church when the sign says no tourists because services are taking place, then sneaking back out again. Taking that extra roll of toilet paper from your hotel or restaurant cause you might need it later. Taking as many packets of sugar, ketchup, etc. from McD's as possible for use at that picnic tomorrow.

We often don't know if we are going the right thing, but we always know when we are doing the wrong thing.

Don't confuse ethics with etiquette. They are not the same thing at all.

So what would you say is the alternative? Not going down the "rabbit
hole" at all, and not caring at all about labor exploitation or
climate change? That's a coherent position, but not one that many
people would find very appealing.

Khbuzzard; I spend half my life in the rabbit hole. I only disagree with one thing you said. I don't think many people do care about the issues if caring inconvenience them or denies them their personal indulgences.

Thinking seriously about ethics means asking difficult questions,
looking at subtle differences between the pros and cons of different
situations, figuring out where to draw then line when there's no
obvious black-and-white answer, and yes, maybe coming to terms with
the realization that some of the things you like to do are wrong

.Khbuzzard; you said in one sentence that I couldn't express in 5 paragraphs. Thanks.

Webmaster must have been bored to start this topic.

The Santa Clara Univeristy applied ethic center has an interesting discussion about what is ethics:
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/
Some excerpts:

The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people
have about ethics are shaky.

...many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being
ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person
following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In
fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often
incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But
laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to
well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans
ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to
society, fairness, or specific virtues.... Secondly, ethics refers to
the study and development of one's ethical standards.

I don't think many people do care about the issues if caring inconvenience them or denies them their personal indulgences.

You're right, James E. I got carried away.

People are definitely confusing etiquette with ethics (and sometimes also with legal).

Etiquette is essentially how you treat and interact with other people. In other words, being polite. Extremely rude people can still be quite ethical.

Ethics is essentially how one makes decisions about life choices. Should you visit Russia or Cuba because of their authoritarian regimes? Should you shop at Walmart or locally owned stores? Should you leave a tip or a suggested (but not required) donation?

Following the law is a part of ethics but as was pointed out, something can be perfectly legal but questionable ethically. For a long time, one could buy ivory or diamonds from conflict zones.

Ethics can be a very personal choice. We can probably all agree that leaving a US restaurant without giving a tip is un-ethical (as well as rude), but is giving a tip to a waiter in Europe ethical (helping provide a little extra to a hard working person) or un-ethical (encouraging waiters to pressure Americans into giving them tips even though local custom does not call for it)?

A good example of the dilemma people can face. In Cuba, many people are dirt poor and struggle to pay for basic things like food and toiletries. But we were encouraged NOT to overtip since that would cause a huge disruption in the local economy and put pressure on scamming people for bigger tips in the future. And of course, was it ethical to visit a place like Cuba where they have these problems partly because of their government? Or do you visit Cuba because it has been singled out by a draconian US embargo that led to the near starvation of millions in the 1990s?

Everyone will have their opinion about these questions, which is why I think it's dangerous to introduce ethical responses to people's travel questions. Let them make their own choices and choose not to answer questions that you find distasteful.

Douglas, is it ethical to inform people of what might be ethical issues they might want to consider? Is it unethical to look the other way in all situations. Or do we assume that the unethical behavior of others has no impact on me or the world, so ignore it? Would it be unethical to listen and draw a different opinion. Would it be ethical to be critical of those that don't share your ethics?

It all sounds silly, but it illustrates, to me at least, the importance of open minded civil dialogue; especially with those with whom you may disagree with.

I believe in ethical behavior while traveling just as when I am a home. It matters not if the country you visit is impoverished or wealthy, authoritarian or free. Being a person of honor is a part of ethical behavior. That means doing the right thing.

If a clerk gives you too much change back on a purchase, you don't keep it, you give it back to the clerk.

I see no political motives, since ethical behavior transcends the political spectrum.

In addition to being ethical, a traveler must respect the people in the foreign country they visit. This includes not being condescending or superior to the local people. As others said here, don't be a jerk.

When visiting a country where English is not the primary language spoken, I always try to learn basic works of greeting, such as thank you, good morning, etc.

Preparing yourself by learning about local customs is not ethics, but good sense and it will assist you in not offending local persons. For example in the Middle East and some other countries, sticking your thumb up like a hitchhiker in North America is a bad idea. That use of the thumb is the equivalent of what we call giving the finger.

Douglas, is it ethical to inform people of what might be ethical issues they might want to consider?

James - you bring up good points and questions. All worthy of some reasonable debate amongst those of us that are willing (such as this thread).

What I would fear and what is almost completely missing from this forum, is criticism of people's choices of travel. It is quite refreshing on an internet forum. Most threads are people with specific questions about their travel plans and are not looking for ethical guidance. Some are looking for input on places to visit and some respectful information given might be reasonable. IE - "Should I attend a bullfight while in Spain?" People could reasonably and respectfully offer their opinions about the ethics of bullfighting since the questions seems to be open to that. But if the question is "How do I purchase tickets to a bullfight?" the answer shouldn't be "Don't." That person isn't asking for opinions on the ethics of bullfighting and it would make the RS forums a hostile place if such questions were routinely answered with ethical diatribes or attempts to make people feel guilty for their choices. And as I tried to point out in my earlier post, there is a lot of gray area in travel ethics and is subject to people's own value's.

@Michael:

Back to old underwear...when I'm overseas I'm my paying local taxes
(in some places very hefty) for governments to deal with waste issues,
so for me there is no ethical dilemma; morally or legally.

Your taxes goes for maintaining the infrastructure and is not intended to clean up the mess left by people who fail to respect the environmental laws. I'm paying for it so it is alright is not acceptable, but sad to say it is what we have come to expect.

@Jim
Exactly what law is being broken by throwing things away in a garbage can provided by the hotel???

Completely agree with Douglas with regard to unsolicited ethical "guidance" - in most cases, it's a surefire way to have a thread slide into a heated exchange about morals, values, and "way of life" arguments.

As far as actual travel goes, in my opinion a traveler's code of ethics should be closer to that of an ethnographer, rather than a missionary or an advocacy journalist.

What I would fear and what is almost completely missing from this
forum, is criticism of people's choices of travel. It is quite
refreshing on an internet forum.

Douglas; I'm not so sure that is a "good thing" for a forum to have no world view ethical standards, but I think its a reality the way this forum is managed. That makes the forum complicit in the consequences of that stance; which is a choice and as a free choice is theirs to make.. I do agree that the debate would require an frank discussion that wouldn't be successful in a forum where identities are hidden. That's why the control would have to come from the top down.

I thank the Webmaster for the thread. I have learned some interesting things and it is helping me to make some very determinant decisions. .

Being ethical in my travels does not often cross my mind, I just behave the same as I would back home. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't sneak into sights without paying, don't cut in line, etc. Americans are pretty good about those types of things in my experience. I would also avoid contributing to the exploitation of people or animals. I have never been to Amsterdam but I would have a very hard time viewing the red light district with the prostitutes in the windows. I think the large majority of women who engage in prostitution on any level, are almost certainly exploited by others. The notion that most engage in prostitution because they are just happy to be in that life seems extremely obtuse. (Hard stop, not to equate that with what follows.) I am on the fence about force feeding of geese in France, I am not sure it's any more cruel than anything else that happens on farms, but not sure. If we criticize that, we might want to take a look at factory farming practices in the U.S. I would also have a hard time viewing a bull fight in Spain, but I recognize that might be somewhat hypocritical since I eat meat (though I do not eat beef).

Thank you VS for bringing up the red light districts. It disgusts me that Rick writes so much about them in his books. His walk through Frankfurt actually directs people to walk through here, like it is a zoo. Hey, lets go look at the junkies and the women/men selling their bodies. They should not be a tourist destination in any city. If anything is unethical, it is this.

He needs to talk one on one to these women or men. This is not a fun job for them. Yes, I have spoken with them and know what I am talking about. I have seen the rooms they not only do business in, but also live in to save money.

Of course they are exploited. Their lives are miserable. The fact that it is legal in some countries is besides the point. I agree that it should be legal as it keeps the sex workers safer and allows them to contribute to the health care system and have pension plans, but good lord, you do not have to promote it in your books or have tours going through here.

Perhaps this needs a thread of it its' own since it is so complicated? Webmaster?

I think you should be allowed to tell people not to do things when they are quite unambiguously causing physical damage to sites and are not popular with local residents, and I've seen people told not to do those things here and done them myself (eg "love locking" and climbing on public sculptures that aren't intended to bear people's weight).

I must admit I'm bemused by the amount of argument here about throwing small items away that you no longer want to use - in a major city I hardly think that one item will be significant compared to the general amount of refuse, and it's probably balanced by travellers in the other direction doing the same thing.

Sometimes behaving just like you were at home or applying your own cultural/ behavioral/ political lens to some place different (or their way of doing things) has its own ethical pitfalls. If nothing else, travel and interaction with other people (not like you) can challenge some of your most dearly held assumptions. I like that Rick encourages travel with an open mind and encourages us to try to see things through the eyes of a local in an attempt to understand (not just tolerate). Europe may not be sufficiently different to worry about value clashes, but there's a whole world out there besides Europe.

I'm with you, VS - we will be in Amsterdam in less than two weeks (excited!!) and I'll be avoiding the red light district at all costs. I guess I would kind of feel...like I was gawking at the scene of a car accident or something - don't want to be a looky-loo. I also won't be partaking in any of the marijuana culture - I know it's legal...and even Canada is on the road to legalization...but it's not my thing at home, and it certainly won't be my thing when I travel.

I am feeling more and more like avoiding animal things...eg - I'd never watch a bull fight. We did go to SeaWorld when we were in San Diego back in 2013, but now I think I'd not darken the doorways of any other entertainment based marine mammal place - we skipped Marineland last year when we went to Niagara Falls. I'm open to aquariums with local marine life, but I don't need to have whales and dolphins perform for me. It is interesting how views change over time - I used to get annoyed by people boycotting travelling circuses with animals, now I understand why and agree totally.

MrsEB, with all due respect, your definition of ethics seems a bit narrow. People are not the only variable in this world to which ethics are applied, either by philosophers or the common person. What about the environment (natural or man-made) and other living things which one encounters in their travels, for example? Ethical judgment can come into play in several dimensions of travel where there may be negative byproducts, not solely people-to-people interactions. It can be as simple as removing some earth from a UNESCO site to bring home despite warnings to the contrary, or feeding stray animals when you know the locals discourage such practices, or slowly contributing to overuse or erosion of a sacred site. The Webmaster was simply throwing out some ideas, all of which seem quite fair to me...there are many other ways to look at ethics when it comes to travel.

Philip: ...argument here about throwing small items away that you no longer want to use....

Disposable travel is just a small symbolic thing (unless you are disposing of things in a wilderness environment). Some bloggers actually advocate disposable travel as a strategy of going light. My weakness is doing the opposite and accumulating "junk" to take home.

E.g. http://www.turnipseedtravel.com/blog/throw-away-packing

Welcome to the world of throw away packing. Your carry on kit is about
to get a lot lighter!

I rarely throw away my clothing. My disposable income goes towards -
you guessed it -travel! When it comes to clothing I favor quality over
quantity and I also try to get said quality at bargain basement prices
whenever I can. But like most people, every year I seem to acquire a
small pile of items whose life cycle is over - or at least it's over
for me. Those items in good condition make their way to our donation
pile but the rest are destined to be discarded around the world,
thanks to throw away packing.

Ethical travel:

• Don't be a drunk or drive drunk.

• Don't litter or relieve yourself in public (even if locals seem to do it, even if a urinal costs € -.50)

• Don't expect Europe to live up to the stereotypes in your head, and don't get angry when things aren't just like they are at home.

• Learn a greeting or two in the local language and how to ask, "Do you speak English??"

• Help reduce street crime in Europe - wear a money belt.

Pretty simple stuff that shouldn't cut into your enjoyment, however you define it. Otherwise, enjoy yourself... wear shorts, talk loudly or softly, discuss politics and religion if you like... and don't worry about representing your homeland properly or about saving the planet in 14 days. It's your vacation, and Europeans tend to be tolerant people. And after all, we tolerate Europeans when they vacation in California looking like this.

I would be interested in reading how Rick Steves would respond, in follow up to, and possibly in contrast with, the "Travel as a Political Act" philosophy. I can't think of any country or culture that is completely without attributes I would consider unethical, immoral, or just plain wrong. Yet, that doesn't impact my decision on where to go. I don't see my temporary presence as being that significant to anyone there.

I think that once you reach a certain age, you have engrained your personal ethics, and they don't change much with travel (except possibly to Las Vegas). I don't think most people would recognize travel to Europe as posing significant ethical questions. Its difficult to think about it too far without going into religion and politics.

"..This is not a fun job for them. ...Of course they are exploited. Their lives are miserable."

No question about this, I agree 100 percent. There is massive exploitation of women, men, and children world-wide and most people choose to ignore it.

"The fact that it is legal in some countries is besides the point."

The fact that it is legal in some countries is exactly the point. RS is not standing there with pompoms cheering people on to go see the red light districts in various countries, and I have never sensed any disrespect from him for the plight of sex workers. What I have heard from him is an illumination of a different way for a society to deal with the issue. RS is simply not ignoring it as most do, he isn't calling it right or wrong, but instead is simply informing lots of otherwise clueless Americans that this exists, there is value in that.

The point is that ethics don't only apply only to interactions with people - they apply to interactions with other living things (animals), the environment, and the many contexts of travel that may not involve one person doing something to another. I believe that the way a person spends their money (whether in travel or elsewhere) is a reflection of their values, although I admit that not everyone may see it that way. Ethics usually come into play when a person can stand to gain something valuable or meaningful (to them) by doing something (like taking home a cultural artifact without permission when no one is looking) versus weighing that gain against the harm it may cause to a number of people (often unknown to the person) or a particular site, or even future generations if the action is significant enough. Most of the time, people do things that seem innocuous to them but actually have ethical ramifications in potentially causing harm to someone or something else, sometimes immediately or sometimes way down the road. So I differ that ethics simply mean respect for others in your interactions with others - that's called etiquette and politeness (deference to cultural or civic norms, etc.), and it's only a part of what encompasses ethics. There are many excellent posts here that have alluded to a more expansive definition of ethics by providing different examples, so I'll end with that thought.

This isn't just about following posted rules, which are among the most explicit forms of guidance for behavior. There are many instances of a lack of an explicit rule against something, or a grey area where someone has to appeal to their sense of morals and ethics for guidance. Those are the toughest situations, not the ones where there is a clear "signal" as to how to respond or behave. You could avoid doing demonstrably destructive things (those that society finds harmful and creates penalties for) and yet still face many more nuanced ethical quandaries related to travel. It usually manifests itself with an uneasy sense of guilt or discomfort about whether you're doing the right thing, for lack of better terms.

While I don't typically respond to specifics in the forum as that isn't my usual role, I suppose I started this topic. So, I'll join in, but this response does not necessarily reflect the views of Rick Steves Europe (aren't disclaimers fun!)...

I don't see how any of the above you listed has anything to do with
ethics whether it's travel, business, education, or in everyday life.
Ethics is about the way you treat others.

By definition (bad pun alert: as I'm the Webmaster, I'll go with Merriam-WEBster (ha!)), ethics are "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity." As such, while ethics do include the way you treat others (e.g. how you interact with locals), ethics is inclusive of the moral choices involved with behavior (e.g. how you spend your money) and activities (e.g. what you choose to see and where you choose to go).

I see your comments less as saying that my suggestions for discussion aren't about ethics, but more that your own ethics wouldn't be in conflict with e.g. a choice to travel to Russia at this time. I'm not going to show my hand with my opinion as to whether travel there is right or wrong, but there is the argument that traveling there could serve as financial support to a regime that invaded a sovereign nation (among other significant concerns). Or, alternately, you may find it to be ethical to go and travel there so that you can know more about the culture, support local citizens, and be a better advocate for the issues the people may face there (even if you only incidentally achieve some level of this in the context of going there on an enjoyable vacation).

Whatever your point of view may be, the idea of ethics is involved (though it may be subconscious) as this is just one example of how the effects of one's behavior encompasses more than the way you treat others.

Also, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful posts thus far. Civil discourse online with this sort of topic is a rare thing. James, I believe you owe us some popcorn. ;)

Don’t bother arguing the details. If you can't or wont look them up yourselves then your mind is set and there is nothing I can say to change it. Besides, it’s the concept that is important because tomorrows players will be different than today’s.

Okay Mr. Webmaster, I will bite. I drove from Sofia to Istanbul. Along the way, I saw women working in the fields while their men sat outside the general store, drank, laughed and ate. In Istanbul, our tour guide had a Master in Hydraulic engineering but couldn’t find a good paying job because she was a woman. She showed me a newspaper story about an honor killing of a young woman because she dated the wrong guy. She said they occurred at the rate of one a day and the mayor was struggling to put an end to it with very little social support.

I could not possibly get comfortable enough in a society of those standards of behavior towards women to be able to truly enjoy myself; and I express that feeling when I think appropriate. Maybe if enough people with Western standards arrive and walk the streets and demonstrate another norm, it will help to make people believe there are options and change will come faster. Mr. Webmaster, is that the RS concept? I like it.

Mr. Webmaster, now your example. And again, this is a specific, but it’s the broader question that is important. Russia has violently invaded territory of its neighbors, supported a coup in a European state, murdered reporters and opposition leaders, effectively banned homosexuality, massacred civilians in air strikes and more. The 3 year death count in Europe as a result is well over 10,000.

The Russian argument for the legitimacy of invading and occupying Crimea would be just as valid if Mexico wanted to take Arizona. Would that be okay? Why would it be different; except it’s our back yard. Would it be ethical to go to Cancun to lay on the beach while the Mexican military was killing US citizens in Scottsdale?

If I thought that sitting in a coffee house or touring a museum in St. Petersburg; while civilians are being killed by troops 800 miles away had any chance to elicit the results as I described in Istanbul, then I would say this is another candidate for the RS method, and beg people to visit. But we aren’t talking about changing social norms we are talking about changing a violent government. The only thing going to St. Petersburg does is to help the Russian government to normalize their perception in the world and provide more propaganda cover for more of the same and escalation of the same sorts of actions. And, when I think appropriate I suggest this to people as well. So helping to enable the commission of the acts such as those the Russian government is participating in, is in my opinion un ethical to the worst degree.

There are lots of marginal places in the world. Ethical behavior in my mind involves facing the truths and making a decision based on if my actions will perpetrate the negative circumstances, be neutral to the problems or possibly help bring solutions; then be willing to sacrifice my personal indulgences accordingly. And yes, this can be expanded to pâté de foie gras (but you can’t have mine) and to landfills and carbon offsets.

Yes sir, I do owe the you and the forum quite a bit of popcorn.

Hmmm. Interesting that the assumption is that the webmaster is not a "webmistress". If that were the case, do any of you consider gender stereotypes as part of your ethics? No judgement here, just curious.

Ethical behavior in my mind involves facing the truths and making a decision based on if my actions will perpetrate the negative circumstances, be neutral to the problems or possibly help bring solutions; then be willing to sacrifice my personal indulgences accordingly.

I concur, James E.

Kaeleku, your comments are good and is the sort of comment that leads to constructive dialogue. A lot better than sarcasm you unnecessarily laid on MrsEB; which sounded like "I cant beat you so I will insult you". So to your points, I have spent maybe a total of 20 days in Bulgaria over 3 trips. A tiny fraction compared to you. I love the place and I love the people; and I will be going back. The comment which you correctly identified as being in Bulgaria needed a lot more work than I gave it. I trimmed and trimmed and trimmed to try and keep the post short enough so that someone might actually read it and it was still too long. A little context got lost in the trimming and I apologize for not being more complete in my thought process.

As far as my truth vs anyone else's truth, there is only ONE who has the real truth and the rest of us do the best that we can to find the truth. More complicated as a wise man once pointed out, this is a three dimensional question and not one of Right vs Left. This is a prefect example where dialogue needs continue and to be persuasive and respectful. But I don't accept and argument that not having the same insight as G-d is a reason not to live ethicall based on what information you do have. I would even argue that believing you have the truth is all that is required to determine an ethical course. Being correct is not a requirement. I would only say that the belief had to have been formed in earnest and not a whim. ie, I want it to be so, therefore it is so", doesn't cut it. In the end we are all mortal and will live and die by that reality.

So yes, I have the truth and that truth is subject to the imperfections of mortality; but I still act upon it. The alternative is a world with no ethics and that would be the end of civilization.

I would like to add don't take any action that messes up things for future visitors. Like those guys hiking in a U.S. state or national park / open space who thought it would be funny to knock over a unique rock formation. I can't stand it when I see people who put their finger 1" away from a painting in a museum, or actually touching a sculpture. There is a reason why you are supposed to keep your distance. Respect it when they say no flash. That may fall short of a breach of ethics, but it's beyond a breach of etiquette.

James E,

As I am certain you appreciate, in a less heavily moderated (and not so predominantly North American) online community some of your points about Russia's actions (... violently invaded territory of sovereign nations, supported a coup in a European state, massacred civilians in air strikes) would be immediately countered with a "WhatAbout" kind of argument, which, in turn, would most likely be countered by American exceptionalism trump card ("Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi"). In a matter of minutes the tread would turn into a flame war of epic proportions - precisely because our minds are set, and nothing the other side will ever say will make us change our position. Travelling to the opponents' country is very unlikely to bring about change in our - or theirs - world outlook with regard to these issues.

The issue of Crimea, if I may, is much more interesting in this respect - and I think an argument can be made that Travel as a Political Act concept well applies to visiting that part of the world.

By the way, I do not readily accept the Mexico wanting Arizona analogy without the obvious modification (i.e. rephrase the question as "Would it be OK for Arizona to join Mexico if the majority of Arizona residents wanted to join Mexico?). The answer from the vast majority of posters here would still, of course, be an emphatic "NO", and, as you correctly pointed out, it would be largely driven by the mere fact that it is "our back yard".

But Crimea isn't our back yard, just like Kosovo wasn't our back yard. And as such, it offers a unique opportunity to try and objectively put to the test the two conflicting narratives of present-day Crimea - that peddled by Western mass media and the one churned out by Russian state propaganda (for those who would like to indulge - check out rt.com or sputniknews.com).

You can talk to people who voted in what they see as a legitimate referendum to secede from Ukraine, and you can talk to people who refer to Russian rule as occupation. You can talk to oppressed Crimean Tatars and non-oppressed Crimean Tatars; ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians. You can find people in Sevastopol who were against "Russian invasion" but changed their minds when Ukrainian activists disrupted energy supply to the peninsula, resulting in 12 to 20-hour daily blackouts throughout the harsh winter months, and you can find people in Yalta who supported "reunification" but changed their minds when they realized that higher pensions under the new rule are offset by higher prices. You can find people that found it repulsive that in a 2011 interview an ex-president of Ukraine had referred to their region as a "festering carbuncle on the face of Ukraine" and you can meet those who find it repulsive that mainland Russians do not treat them as equals.

Basically, you would be doing the reporters' job, but unlike the vast majority of them who have never set foot in Crimea, you would have a first-hand experience - and ethical and moral grounds to pass judgment (which, incidentally, would carry a lot more weight precisely because it is based on your own witness testimony).

I visited in 2016, armed with a shining set of preconceived notions, political views, and expectations - and most of them were shattered to smithereens.

TravelingMom, I would have been gender neutral, but I have been chastised so many times by the Webmaster that I know him well.

But to answer your question, in my view, yes.

James,
I wonder if you truly feel comfortable with some of the things you see/experience right here in our own country (by the way, no moral equivalency is implied here..I want to steer clear of that argument). I know I don't. It's easy to criticize others or pull out select examples which demonstrate something negative, but is that all there is to it? Is that the whole story? I think it takes a lot of exposure and deep thinking to really learn about another place, its history, and its current state of affairs. There are a lot of nuances there. Tourism is short, temporary, and self-contained to certain areas or experiences, and one often doesn't see much below the surface. This isn't to negate what you saw, but extrapolating from some select experiences to what an entire society condones is a bit too much of a stretch. These are two very large countries you spoke of. What you hear from one person or another may be representative or it may be not, or it may be simply context specific...it's hard to tell. The point is I don't think there is any place/country/region where you would not be able to find something that causes some amount of discomfort or aversion...people and people everywhere and subject to the same sins. Having said that, feeling uncomfortable is very understandable as you're trying to align your values and ethics with what you're seeing, and the cognitive dissonance is pretty palpable. I've felt that way several times but it makes me want to engage more to try to figure out whether my feelings are justified or if there's something more out there to consider. Getting more input and more information shapes your evolution of thinking on any subject, and I think that's what Rick encourages us to do when we travel. Although it's a narrow purpose, it's a legitimate one. I don't think the goal is to try to change some country's circumstances as some well meaning Western observer. I personally have no standing or moral authority to do something like that (I'm not even sure the US itself has the levers it used to employ, or the will to employ them, in that direction). To truly change something complex, you need to be able to understand it inside and out first, or you're in for some serious humbling.

I'm still trying to understand why throwing away underwear while visiting Europe is an ethical issue. One time I accidentally poured most of a cup of coffee on my favorite long-sleeved white tee shirt during a 5 hour layover at Heathrow. I guess I could have saved it to be a cleaning rag, but I tossed it after I changed shirts in a restroom.

On a different trip, I realized that the super-comfortable pants that I bought the day before leaving home would not stay zipped for more than a few minutes. I threw those away in Normandy.

I'm guessing that most of you, and most Europeans, would have done the same thing. I'm not the most travelled person on this forum, but I have yet to see a middle-class and middle-aged woman anywhere in Europe walking around in a badly-stained tee shirt and unzipped pants.

Traylaparks,
I don't know if this helps, but my experience (at least in Germany) is that they are hyper-recyclers. Their products don't have excessive packaging like you see in the States and they "price" the cost of waste into their goods. They were way ahead of the curve when it came to recycling when I went there in the early '90s. I don't know where soiled clothes go but perhaps not in the regular (landfill) trash. There was a recycling bin for just about everything when I went. I guess if I found myself in that situation, I would ask the hotel staff what the best approach would be.

Agnes, recycling here in Switzerland is even better organised than Germany. Shops have to, by law, take back all packaging, and take back the product when it is worn out. This has caused the complete disappearance of expanded Polystyrene packaging. The shops don't want it back as it is too bulky. Everything comes packed in recyclable cardboard.
Electrical appliance/TV/phone no longer works, easy, when you buy a new one, take the old one back to the shop and hand it over.
All glass, paper, cardboard, PET bottles and metal is recycled. You are not allowed to put this in your rubbish bag. But, as you pay per bag for rubbish collection, there is a financial incentive to re-cycle.
"regular (landfill) trash." - there is no landfill. Everything is incinerated and the heat used to generate electricity and for district heating.

This sometimes causes problems with tourists, who "throw away" things they shouldn't.

Thanks for the info Chris - I've never been to Switzerland so that's why my comments were confined to Germany (not to the exclusion of other countries which may be even more progressive when it comes to handling trash). I'm not surprised by your comments regarding Switzerland. I think this is one of those cultural differences where people assume things are "just like at home" and one can "do what they would do back home". There are very few places in the US where recycling is really robust...(http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/09/17/5-cities-are-recycling-superstars). Unbelievably, styrofoam is still used in many places like smaller restaurants that have take-out. We're light years away on our thinking about generation and recycling of waste.

Agnes

There are plenty of things I am not comfortable with here and to the extent that I can, I contribute to solutions, but we are talking about vacations and forms of enjoyment and that changes the perspective a lot. I can say that I would also boycott vacationing in a KKK summer camp; others have drawn the line and boycott North Carolina because of the bathroom laws, and I respect their conviction.

I also don’t agree with making moral equivalencies. X is okay because Y does it worse. So pointing out how much worse I am than someone else is doesn’t make them okay; makes us both equally bad.

To the question of moral authority; I have no moral authority, I have a personal standard of ethics. Is it ethical for me to keep those standards to myself? Gee we could write a thesis on this.

The rest of your comments I think are pretty valid the majority of the time. I used extremes explicitly to stay out of the grey areas. Your comments about wanting to become more engaged in the face of the situations are noble. I could do that for instance in Istanbul if I were to take it on as a personal mission; but that would negate enjoying the vacation; and again, it’s only the concept of enjoying a vacation that I was discussing. I do larger things as part of travel but I don’t really consider them “vacations”.

Agnes, this was good. I have never taken the time to think this through to this degree before. Thank you.

I know I've already chimed in on this thread, but something struck me when reading another thread on this board: what are the ethics of visiting a concentration camp?

I'm torn on this. One on hand, I can view visting Dachau as bearing witness to the truth of the Holocaust. I can also see those who lost loved ones in the Holocaust wanting to see where those people spent their last minutes.

On the other, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with these mass graves being tourist attractions. Yes, there are other mass graves -- military cemeteries -- that are tourist attractions. One can reflect on the sacrifice of the men and women who fell in whichever war stole their lives. These cemeteries are there specifically to be visited. Is the same true with a concentration camp? Would those who died there want these scars on the Earth to be some kind of morbid checkbox on a tour?

Just as an nb, shortly after 9/11, I visited Ground Zero. I lost no one when the towers came down; I had no connection to the WTC. To this day, I struggle with the question of did I go as a man interested in history, or was it something more base that put me on that viewing platform? The question remains unresolved for me.

-- Mike Beebe

...ethics of visiting a concentration camp....

During a bike tour of the Mecklenburg Lake District we made an unplanned stop at Ravensbrück. Our German friend riding with us commented that these historic sites were important in reminding us about what happened in the past so these tragedies are not repeated.

In a sense, one role of ethical travel is learning from history.

These last few comments, I think, are important, and they lead me to reiterate something I said in my previous post on this thread. One aspect of ethical travel is to have reverence for the places we visit.

I visited the 9/11 memorial in New York a couple of years ago, and I was dumbstruck by the subset of tourists with selfie-sticks, the loud conversations, and a general lack of respect for the place. I grew up in New York and had visited the WTC and wanted to pay my respects. I wouldn't consider this a "tourist attraction."

I visited Muir Woods, outside San Francisco, this past December, and there are several areas where signage asks that visitors enter quietly. Here, too, many of the visitors were conversing loudly.

I went to New Orleans a few years ago (I'd previously lived there for a couple of years in the mid 1980s) and I took a "Katrina Tour." I was conflicted about this, but I wanted to understand the scope of the tragedy from the context of my memories from before. I felt the tour guide did a good job of explaining things and there was no gawking and no photographing of people's homes.

When we enter a cemetery or a former concentration camp, it's an opportunity to learn and understand. We need to respect the history of the place.

But wherever we travel, we need to show respect for the people who live and work there and for the other visitors.

For your consideration, I have an ethical dilemma (better than the underwear issue) I have actually thought about while traveling - bottled water. At home I have a pretty clear belief in avoiding bottled water for several reasons: plastic bottles made from oil, and a disposal problem; predatory multi-national corporations making money by squeezing out competitors and buying up local water rights; perceived health benefits that are mostly marketing hype; and selling something for profit that should be available to everyone.

Yet, in traveling, I often give in to the convenience of buying bottled water, especially if the local water has objectionable taste, or I have suspicions of the safety of it. So I see that my ethics are somewhat flexible given the situation and my judgment. This may seem like a trivial example, but it cuts across political and cultural boundaries.

I think part of being an adult is using your experience and judgment to apply ethics as you see necessary to the situation. That includes judging the behavior of others and making decisions as best you can. You will never have perfect intelligence in order to make all decisions. The rightness or wrongness of those decisions depends as much on your intent as the consequence.

Stan,
Your ethical problem is not too tough. Here's what I recommend...it's a reusable, well-designed Japanese stainless steel thermos that is one of the best made I've ever seen. I carry mine on all my travels. It only weighs 9 ounces and keeps liquids hot and cold for a very long period of time, and you can open and close/lock it using only one hand (super easy). It's probably the best travel gift I ever received. Just refill it instead of buying more water in plastic bottles. Obviously the utility of this totally depends on whether you can find a water source in the hotel (or wherever) that would get rid of the need to buy water at a store.
http://www.target.com/p/zojirushi-stainless-steel-vacuum-mug-with-slicksteel-finish-smoky-blue-16-oz/-/A-50409140

In contrast to your experience, I grew up only with boiled water (this was in Poland) because it was the only one considered safe and clean. So I got used to never drinking tap water (or water all all, except for mineral water). But I don't buy bottled water anymore, I just use a filter.

Agnes the carbon footprint of the production of that Stainless Steel thermos is enormous. Japan has no iron mines so everything has to be shipped in. And the power used in the production comes from dangerous nuclear and environmental disastrous hydroelectric plants.

James, did you see the price tag of that (rather small) thermos? All that "damage" is priced in (and as I said, I got it as a gift, but gladly recommend it) ... LOL :-) And sadly it's not actually manufactured in Japan, but rather Thailand.

I'm a huge fan of many Japanese products, they are well made, functional, and designed to last. I'm able to go without buying plastic water bottles on every trip - it adds up.

Stainless steel discussion reminds me of a colleague of Indian (subcontinent) origin explaining why Indian restaurants use stainless steel plate service. Stainless steel service is a popular wedding present because it lasts a lifetime.

http://kasaindian.com/indian-restaurant-sf/2009/10/why-we-serve-our-food-on-metal-plates/

I feel I must explain why we serve our meals on metal trays (called a
‘Thali’) here at Kasa. We do it as an homage to the vast majority of
people in India (many of humble socioeconomic status) who eat out of
these trays each and every day and have done so for centuries.
Nowadays, the wealthier classes in India tend to use porcelain plates
in an attempt to mimic the West and distinguish themselves from the
poor. But we love the metal thalis because they are extremely
durable, never break and fit our vibe of being ultra-practical. We
think they look pretty cool too…

Agnes, yes of course I realize I can refill and reuse any bottle, including plastic ones, if there's an acceptable source of water available. And I often do. But my point was not how can I avoid compromising my at-home principles, but the fact that I do (and many others as well) buy bottled water when traveling, and that its a decision involving ethics. I'm not saying its a right or wrong decision for me or anyone else, but I am saying that it involves some ethical consideration as to whether the convenience outweighs the negatives.

I understand it is the cultural norm for people raised with unreliable water to use bottled water without a second thought. But the negative impacts I described are the same whether or not you make a conscious decision. I don't think ethics should be considered entirely subjective.

One solution would be to drink only wine.

Understood. My only point was that you can use certain "props" to make doing the right thing a lot easier. Sometimes they're mental props and sometimes they're physical props like a small thermos. I can develop totally new habits if I remove some barriers (often laziness or convenience).

OK, we're starting down that rabbit hole.

I must say though, that while many threads of this type degrade, this one went the other way, turning into a sort of on-line symposium on the branch of philosophy that is ethics. Feel like I'm in a sophomore "Intro to Philosophy" course. Maybe even a 200 level course.

OK, OK. In a nutshell, I think bottled water is unethical, but sometimes when I travel, I buy it anyway. I feel guilty about it, but not enough to inconvenience myself. I also judge other people for doing it without thinking about it.

James, I only drink wine that comes in boxes, how about that for principles?

Does the wine come in a box made of recyclable cardboard? That would be something if, as Chris from Switzerland wrote, we got charged for each trash bag we throw out and/or are able to bring all packaging back to the store of purchase of the "old" stuff (before we buy the "new" stuff). I'm sticking with my stainless steel thermos which, according to long Indian (those of East Asia) wedding gift traditions, will last me a lifetime.

Agnes, of course I was kidding. As for the wine, I only drink wine that other people pay for making the ethical dilemma theirs.

And yes, this thread went remarkably well. You realize that there was a lot of disagreement, but even more respect; causing me to lose a bet. Payment will arrive on Tuesday.

On the ethics of visiting concentration camps, I am also conflicted. It makes me uncomfortable, but I think it raises my own awareness about the atrocities of the previous century. It's one thing to see a movie or read a book about it, but to be there is another thing entirely. In the spirit of "never forget," I have visited Dachau and was very moved. My wife and I thought the Terror Museum in Budapest was great, but are we gawkers to stand in the cell where people were tortured and killed? The presentation is tasteful, we returned for a second visit in 2014. Many castles in Europe were built to protect against locals who did not especially like the idea of being occupied by a foreign power (talking here about the ones in Ireland, Wales, Scotland). I love visiting castles and don't refuse to visit the ones that fall in that category. For that matter the nobles in the castles in many other countries were surely oppressing the peasants by modern standards. The Coliseum was used for making a public spectacle of the brutality of the Roman Empire. I have qualms visiting bone chapels like the one in Evora. The monks who built it were making a point to worshippers that someday we all end up like the people whose bones those are, but I found it distasteful. The bog bodies in the Dublin Archeological Museum were victims of human sacrifice (they think POWs from warring clans). They are fascinating, but these are human remains we are looking at. I have moral qualms about a lot of these things and decide on a case-by-case basis, as we all must based upon our own moral compass. I think the fact that we think about these things during travel is good, no matter where you draw the line. It's all part of asserting yourself as a modern, thinking being and citizen of the world.

I have strong emotions about the plight of the Jews. When I see someone say that seeing a camp was really neat, I cringe. Shoes on the Danube monument in Budapest dedicated to the hundreds of Jews that were murdered and tossed in the river in the closing days of the war. Actually its deeper than that, but that would take a while. So one day when I am at the monument a group of girls in their 20's show up. Thank G-d they weren't American. But they asked me what the monument was about and when I explained it to them they giggled. My wife stopped me from pushing them in the river. BUT, that's an exception. I think no matter what you mindset is when you go to a camp, by the time you have seen it and heard the explanation you will have a different view on a lot of life; well unless you have no conscience or no soul. So its better for idiots to go then not to go. Mostly they will grow as a result. I say this pretty confidently as it is what happened to me.

I think I stated in an earlier post that I always pay to see a house of worship (collection box). I try to do the same with places like the Shoes on the Danube. Sometimes money isn't the right entrance fee, sometimes its appropriate to bring flowers, sometimes its appropriate to memorize one name off the wall and repeat it often. Yes, these are holy sites.

I stay in Budapest in an apartment that is about 250 feet from the entrance to the deportation ghetto. With out a map or a guide you wouldn't know that, but I know where the wall stood and I know when I am stepping over it. And I remember it each time I cross that line.

For those of us exploring the concept of ethical travel, I would recommend a book that has enlightened me as to the varied and complex issues regarding travel in all its various forms. The title is: Overbooked - The exploding Business of Travel and Tourism. The author is: Elizabeth Becker. It is a well-researched, informative and eye-opening is many ways.

A la concentration camps - think about how many people were beheaded at the Tower of London...or the prisoners kept in the cells when you visit the Doge's Palace in Venice...I know those are farther in the past than concentration camps. Or people who do the Jack the Ripper walks in London...so many tourist sights were once scenes of horror and misery...hard to avoid...

How people treat and interact with memorials is actually a fascinating cultural study. It actually has less to do with ethics and more to do with cultural attitudes.

In the late 19th century, people would ride carriages or take streetcars out to cemeteries to have picnics and enjoy what amounted to a public park for them.

Sites of horror and tragedy that occurred well in the past, such as the Colosseum or a castle are generally treated as a fun place to hang out and visit. We think very little, if at all about the horror of such places.

Southern plantations have only more recently begun to address the history of slavery and provide better interpretations and reconstruct long missing slave cabins. That is a good thing for us to better understand history, but honestly, people don't visit to see how slaves lived, they want to see beautiful mansions filled with antiques. That they get some more thorough understanding of how all those beautiful things came about is worthwhile.

I doubt that many people today pass a Civil War monument and feel a tinge of emotion for the horrific sacrifice of those soldiers. It's just too distant now. But we still feel the emotion of visiting the Vietnam Memorial or the Normandy cemeteries. Or a Concentration Camp. I wouldn't think twice about a group of teens hanging out at the Civil War monument laughing and enjoying a carefree life; but most of us take offense at such immaturity where the emotions are still raw.

I have visited Dachau, Hiroshima, Ground Zero, civil rights sites and battlefields. For me, it helps to put the enormity of events into context.

I read a post here once in which an individual made the statement that you can’t understand the impact of the event until you have visited a camp. I took issue with the statement.

I once met a gentleman who in his early 50’s had taken the history classes and heard the stories but it wasn’t until he walked into the PInkas synagogue in Prague that IT hit him. Now if you haven’t seen this place, it really isnt much. It a small, very simple synagogue; but his story was like this; he walked in and saw an empty building with a roped off walkway leading through it. The walls on the inside are totally plain and undecorated and painted grey. Then he discovered that the paint was white and it was the thousands of hand painted names that made it look grey from a distance. He said he became obcesseed and couldn’t stop reading names, began sweating and would have collapsed if his wife had not caught him. All the pieces he had learned over the years finally fell into place and he reacted violently. He now gets deeply angry and red in the face at the mention of the holocaust. I remember watching a holocaust survivor telling him he had to let go of it. That was a beautiful thing to see this Jewish Holocaust Survivor telling a Baptist from Jersey to let go of the past. Now, tell me that gentleman NEEDs to go to a camp to understand. I think it would be more than he could stand.

But like I said further above, if there is any doubt that someone doesn’t understand, walking Auschwitz will cure him or nothing will.

But I am seriously off topic here. Sorry Mistress Webmaster.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with the idea of visiting a concentration camp. I think it's so important to understand and remember what happened, and seeing them in person really helps with that, especially for those who have not read about or studied the topic. For me, visiting Auschwitz was also an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the victims. I was so happy to have that opportunity even if it wasn't an enjoyable experience.

I feel similarly about visiting war cemeteries. I love to look at as many names on the graves as I can and honor and appreciate the sacrifice that was made. I don't enjoy it, in fact I can hardly stop from crying. But I do appreciate the opportunity to be there and remember.

If other people visit these places to check them off the list, that is unfortunate. But I'm still glad they are there, because i suspect they learn something. I just can't imagine how this could be considered unethical.

This is just my personal and humble opinion, but I think a lot of you are way overthinking this.

My day to day ethics, here at home or travelling anywhere else, are governed by the little voice I have in my head that says, "No, stop, you know that is not right". Most people have that little voice, AKA, your conscience, but there are people who don't. Me? I just try to follow that little voice, although sometimes I do slip up.

Before this thread gets too too serious let me briefly observe that Ms. Jo (and Mrs EB too probably) really wouldn't like me when I'm in traveler mode. I have a pile of little shampoo bottles in my gym locker that will surely mean my next stop after this one is damnation.

Many comments in this thread assert that there shouldn't be a traveler mode at all, that we should be the same listening-to-the-angel-on-our-shoulder person abroad that we are at home. Some go further and say that we should be a little better when playing an away game than on our home turf -- we should be mindful of being guests in another's home, and on our best behavior accordingly.

I think this points to some anxiety about the origin and stability of our ethical commitments -- when the mice are away from the cat, they will play, and maybe not so nicely. A stranger just passing through must surely be tempted to sin, just as an anonymous commenter is more likely to remove the filter on their filth, no? If you think people, including yourself, do the right thing mostly because someone is watching, then you have to provide some other kind of buttress when the watchers you worry about are back home. That buttress, inside the abrahamic traditions, is a Watcher from whom you can't hide, even at a breakfast buffet in Bavaria. Not a single banana can fall in your daypack without Him knowing and caring.

Outside the abrahamic traditions there may be more room to maneuver; we may not be dogs prone to going astray. But that's one of the points of travel -- to be let off the leash for a little while. I hate seeing tourists behaving badly, but then why don't I get worked up as much by sports fans engaging in trash talkin' when the occasion is right? We make allowances for circumstance. Isn't being on vacation a circumstance? Multi-use facilities complicate the circumstances, and that's where etiquette comes to the rescue. Almost everyone in that famous cathedral at this moment is there for a slightly different reason, ranging from thanking the saint for curing an illness to comparing this Bernini sculpture to the other ones to getting a selfie in front of the big gold bowl to getting a chance to sit down out of the sun for a few minutes. How can they possibly get along when they are at cross purposes? Etiquette - not ethics.

Outside of a dog etiquette is a traveler's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to take a selfie.

Lots and lots of paragraphs on this thread that have everything to do with empathy and nothing to do with ethics.
Just sayin'.

Collecting hotel toiletries doesn't damn you but you know you can take home the ones you partially used and fill it up to use again and again?

This has been a fascinating thread. It sparked me to go look and see what Cambridge University Press had to offer that might be apply or be enlightening. (I love working for a publisher that not only publishes about ancient ethics, but also has books on nanotechnology!) At any rate, I found some that I might explore so thought I'd share them an the thread.

• Ethics in Action--As the endorser says the book addresses questions such as, “ "How should Western human rights activists deal with people from different cultural backgrounds? What should be the moral priorities of international human rights nongovernmental organisations? Should they focus their energies on the promotion of democracy, the alleviation of poverty, or both? Is it ethically acceptable to cooperate with authoritarian governments that repeatedly infringe the right of their peoples?" Thorny issues to be sure.
• The Global Politics of Contemporary Travel Writing--I think I am going to get this one. The book is asking if the popular travel writers--Theroux, Bryson, Chatwin, Palen, etc--will continue to serve a purpose in a world where "everyone travels."
  
• Actual Ethics--From a professor who works a few blocks from me here in Washington Heights. This one looked accessible to real people.
  

Thanks for a great discussion. I hope it continues. This has been terrific and encouraging.

Pam

I don't know how many people here hike whether in the States or overseas (I do), but this struck me as a clear ethical dilemma (I can see valid arguments on both sides of the issue).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/04/01/he-found-a-sick-bear-cub-and-faced-a-choice-let-it-die-or-risk-his-life-to-save-it/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.506049a2a0e8

This seems relegated to National Parks and such, but I've seen so many sickly or ill animals in my travels whether Italy or Turkey or Mexico (mostly cats and dogs, but even a really poor-shape donkey in the Andes of Argentina), that I admit that it's really hard to know if and how one should intervene (assuming of course one is an animal lover). I have some really bad memories of trying to "do what's right" because there are different cultural perspectives on this. Even feeding an emaciated animal can result in strong rebuke from locals. Of course, then there's ethical minefield of "what about poor people" who are also suffering and get no help from strangers? Very tough to work out ethically. I've never been able to come to a conclusion that's satisfactory.

PS. Pam from NYC, thank you so much for those book links! I will definitely look into them. I really appreciate it.

It sparked me to go look and see what Cambridge University Press had to offer that might be apply or be enlightening.

This very popular and free course from Harvard falls in the "enlightening" category as well.

http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

I think that ethics in travel should not be that different from your ethics at home and how you live your life.

Interesting topic and a very broad one. I see people are struggling even with a common definition.

I saw a post by jvb who said he/she looks at a country eg Cuba and decides if they will go or not. Do they meet certain standards.

I come from a background of having worked and lived in foreign countries. Which is a bigger ethical talk.

What I came away with is that I dont want to go to a country that represses at a govt level its population. China, Ethiopia, Cuba, Russia come to mind. I came to this conclusion after having lived in Ethiopia - where the govt controls a lot of life.

Otherwise I dont worry about it. I dont have one set of ethics and values for travel vs those I have for home.

"Ethics at home" can't possibly apply to travel because you aren't dealing with the same issues at home.
I appreciated the statements that went something like this, "As long as you are thinking about issues and asking yourself questions, you are doing it right."
Being thoughtful and making a decision for oneself based on that thoughtfulness I believe is valuable.

I went to Cuba to see and understand. I had valuable interactions with human beings. The experience improved my life and has affected how I see the world and how I will behave and think about things in the future. I believe I had an impact on the lives of individual Cuban citizens. My empathy for the professional, well-to-do Cubans that lost their possessions that now live in Florida does not keep me from empathy for current day Cubans. Did Raul Castro benefit from my tourist/traveler peso? Maybe. If yes, it was worth it to me. How am I going to have a valid world view if I don't observe? How can I observe if I don't go?

My viewpoint is that if you think someone is overthinking about ethics or that it isn't so complicated, you don't get it.

I agree with the sentiments that it may be overly simplistic to say that you could safely revert to the same ethics and behaviors you practice "at home". At home, you're in familiar territory and you have some confidence (perhaps even overconfidence) in knowing how you'd likely react to various situations. Travel exposes you to some experiences that invoke different challenges than you may face at home...the way you might have to react is wholly context-specific or even culturally appropriate in a way that seems foreign to your regular behavior. In totally new environments and situations, the ethical tools you have at hand may seem not as sharp or steady as you'd like. It really depends on your travel style and perspective, and whether you have opportunities to get exposed to truly thorny ethical dilemmas (or recognize them as such).

I think this is a little bit an interpretation of "ethics". Ethics are the underlying belief systems that come into play when you are confronted with a circumstance. That underlying belief system really shouldn't change no matter what. I make a contract with you. You cut my grass and I pay you. Honoring that contract is an ethical issue. My underlying belief system says that even if I found someone that same day who would do it cheaper, I would still honor my contract. Okay, now; Its Monday and I make arrangements for a guide in Budapest for Saturday. We have an oral contract that on Saturday I show up, she tours me and I pay her $100. But on Thursday I find a cheaper guide? I honor my original contract. What if I find a better guide that can get me into something I really want to see that the first cant? I recognize that ethically I should pay both guides; one for the lost work day and one for the tour.

I condemn anyone in the U.S. who does not treat a woman with the same respect, rights and privileges as they do a man. Should I go to a country whose social norm is to treat women with less? Yes, possibly, if there is any chance in the world that my example and the example of thousands like me will help bring change. But that mission has to be forefront in my behavior and choices while traveling in that country and in some circumstances that could turn a vacation into a mission. If I just want a vacation, no, I stay away.

If its a dictatorship murdering people and committing international crimes; my presence probably is going to do more harm than good, so again, I stay away.

Norma, thank you. Owe you big time. I could have been hung from the rafters before I explained the typo......

James, I think you mean "hanged", not "hung"

Okay ladies, get the paddles out and I will run the gauntlet.

Stan,
I feel better about bottled water in Europe than I do at home. In Europe it's cheaper and I know the bottles get recycled.

While this isn't exactly the subject of ethics I feel strongly that we need to listen when we travel. By that I mean we need to be willing to understand that traveling is about more than just "seeing the sights, history and art". I want to know the story of the people that I meet if they are willing to tell me.

As for ethics (well maybe etiquette)... I was in Dubai several years ago and wanted to take a photograph of a woman at a market who was wearing a burka and keeping a couple of children entertained. I remembered what Rick said once...just ask "photo?". I followed his advice and asked and she waved her hands "no". I just smiled and nodded and went about my way. I didn't feel bad about asking and in hindsight I'm glad I did.

I do have a pet peeve though....hearing people in the U.S. talk about people in the UK driving on the "wrong" side of the road. Grrrr

Great thread: given me many things to think about.

"I agree with the sentiments that it may be overly simplistic to say that you could safely revert to the same ethics and behaviors you practice "at home".

This hit home as I've just seen the kajillionth flap in the forums about tipping versus not. Without debating whether it's a customs versus ethics issue, I do think there's an ethical piece to it where doing our bit not to destroy local culture is involved? Frustrated Europeans from countries where tipping isn't customary argue time and time again that not only is it not done, it's actually harmful. Their reasons for tourist abstention are many, they are valid, and an instance where the "When in Rome..." rule overrides standard practice at home however uncomfortable that may feel?

I once gave a tip to a waiter in France and the waiter handed it back to me and begged me to stop trying to destroy his culture. Naaaaaa, not really.

I think of so many things under the title "travel ethics" and found this topic interesting to read. In another life I taught "ethics" in a leadership curriculum for a college...but now that I think back it was more about behavior. Do you want to tell your grandmother what you did? Do you want to see your actions on the front page of the newspaper? Those sort of questions. Good of the whole or Good of the individual. So how do I relate those thoughts to Travel Ethics.

I used to buy carbon offsets until I couldn't verify there were actually useful. I could plant a tree every time I fly or take a cruise. Would that make me feel like I did something ethical to offset my carbon footprint.

I always carry my hydroflask...it's not about liking the water as much as not adding to the recycling issue. I also bring my own grocery bag to countries, states and US territories and I ask my travel companions to bring them as well.

I do vote with my travel dollar by NOT going to places like the Maldives even though I hear the snorkeling is amazing or to Egypt or to Mexico....but I could also make the argument that there a many places that could be on that list.... everyone has to make their own decisions about what matters to them. I don't like to visit impoverished places because I don't think me being there is helpful. I also don't need to visit a concentration camp or Pearl Harbor but I did literally run off the tour bus to see the shipyard in Gdansk and I felt honored to be there (my grandparents came to Chicago from Poland) and celebrate that event.

I do try to obey the customs of countries I visit like not tipping in NZ or Italy but it did feel odd to me to not tip and I did say I "try" to obey the customs I am not always successful.

I do cover my head and shoulders in a Duomo but would I cover my head in a Muslim country? I'm neither Catholic or Muslim or for that matter a believer. Is that behavior about ethics?

This is a great thread for thought! Thanks. Donna

James, it actually happened to us, in a small little restuarant in Noyers, France. The server slid his glasses halfway down his nose, steepled his fingers, and stared down at us, "You Americans tip TOO much!" He informed us he was a professional and essentially did not require our charity. Am waiting for the replay here at home.

Donna (above) says she votes with her travel dollar and does not visit the Maldives or Egypt among others. I will not visit Hungary while it is under its present regime. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to go to Hungary twice in the 1990s so my ethics vis-a-vis that country cost me little.

I know Germans who refuse to visit the US because we still put people to death here. For them, that is putting their ethical beliefs into practice.

Norma, the present regime in Hungary was elected by and continues to be supported by the same people you visited in 1990 (he served 1998 to 2002 and 2010 to the present) so maybe there is an ethical question there. Just shows how complex this thing can get. I am not crazy about some of the things Orban has been up to but I think the place is still in the realm of the RS philosophy. I have even come around to the belief that Istanbul falls within the realm of the RS philosophy; but I make a personal choice to avoid it because it touches human rights nerves that make me very uncomfortable and I don’t go on holiday to be uncomfortable. Now, the current Syrian thing is something else altogether. Any country that doesn’t condemn gassing children, gives them cover or vetoes attempts to sanction the criminal nation; well, that does go well beyond my sense of understanding and tolerance; and the RS philosophy would useless on them. Webmaster, that was tempered out of respect for you. Multiply x 1000 and you might get have of the emotion I have on the subject and the culprits. And for the ethical issue on the subject. There is a second narrative being spread. Let’s say that in a few years the very unlikely occurrence of the second narrative proves to be true. I ask myself, which side of the issue would I rather be on the incorrect side of.

MsJo, I can respect that. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty either. Its why I boycott California, Washington and Oregon AND
Egypt Morocco Bahamas Brazil Cuba Egypt St Kitts China India Indonesia Iran Japan Kuwait Malaysia Palestine Saudi Arabia Thailand UAE Vietnam Belarus Russia Qatar Maldives Laos Lebanon South Korea

Isn't this a fine bunch of countries to be lumped in with?

Egypt Morocco (Morocco hasn't executed anyone since 1993) Bahamas Brazil (Brazil hasn't executed anyone since 1876) Cuba Egypt St Kitts China India Indonesia Iran Japan Kuwait Malaysia Palestine Saudi Arabia Thailand UAE Vietnam Belarus Russia Qatar Maldives (Maldives hasn't executed anyone since 1953) Laos Lebanon South Korea (S. Korea hasn't executed anyone since 1997)

There are 32 states with the death penalty, not just 3.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001172

Ms. Jo; Yes, but I have chosen to boycott those three states and especially Japan. Horrible place.

TravelingMom, I have read a lot of your posts and I believe you have a good and honest heart and you can be very articulate but I disagree with just about everything you have said. Its way off topic so I wont argue, but if you want a friendly exchange, send me a PM and you try and convince me and I will try and convince you.

James E. I don't believe that it is off topic. I would love if you kept your discussion public. I agree with travelingmom. I like to have my position challenged to be sure I am considering all of the angles.

When you visit a country what are you visiting....the government, the people, the history, the art, the landscape?

When gathering information before making a decision what sources do you use, how much time do you spend? I would like to be a thoughtful, "good" world citizen, but if I researched every topic (from can I throw away my holey underwear away, to what has a bigger carbon footprint a steel water bottle or a plastic water bottle, to is it too environmentally costly for me to fly that far, to what are the evils of the current government....etc) I would need to curl up in a ball and not get out of bed.

As I see it. My life exerts a cost on the universe. I deserve to spend that cost as much as every other living being. I am attempting to give as much back to my society as I can while enriching my own life as well. After living over 50 years and contributing to my local society (children, family, neighborhood, city, state, country), I would like to expand my society to include more. I share what I have learned by expanding my experience with people in my local society that do not have the opportunity to travel.

I am trying to combat the intolerance and hatred in "myself" and the world by talking and interacting with one person at a time. I believe that whatever "bad thing" I did by going to Cuba was outweighed by the good that was done. I don't see how isolation or avoidance of contact will help.

Several different ideas expressed here, I know.
I think it is a bad idea to try to legislate morality. I think it is a bad idea for one person to make decisions based on what another person thinks is right. I hope that more people will think about these things carefully and make their own decisions.

Here's an ethical issues to which the owner of this website seems to turn a blind eye: Human Trafficking.

Yes, prostitution is legal or semi-legal in many countries in Europe. But if you follow the local news (which often requires some working fluency with the language), you see how often some of these "legal" institutions get raided by the authorities for trafficking.

So, is it "ethical" to promote awareness of a technically legal activity that often has quite a bit of criminality underlying it? Or should we just pretend that all those eastern European and Asian women at the strip clubs, date bars and brothels emmigrated to the west voluntarily to become sex workers? And guess what... some of the same organized crime syndicates involved in human trafficking also have their hands in the business of Mr. Steves' beloved "Coffee shops" in the Netherlands.

I think this is a far bigger ethical issue than whether or not to take toilettries from a hotel...

EDIT: Oops, I see this was discussed already a little higher in the thread.

vandrabrud, TravelingMom pulled her post I guess. That's unfortunate because it was good. I didn't want to pursue it in the tread because it was about perceptions as opposed to how one would act upon those perceptions. I didn't agree that you could get a fair and balance perception of a culture on a three day visit. What a half dozen people, mostly in the tourist industry, tell you isn't going to be a representative cross section of many cultural or political norms. So what about all the RS share the goodness attitude? I suspect its real but its probably more your impact on them than theirs on you. After all they see thousands from every imaginable culture every year through the tourist trade so they do get a broader sampling. From the perspective of the tourist I think about the best you can hope for is to realize that humanity, no matter where it is, is basically good. But this isn't ethics so I didn't want to belabor the point. But I guess I did anyway.

To answer some of your questions

When you visit a country what are you visiting....the government, the
people, the history, the art, the landscape?

I go first for people, second for atmosphere, third for monuments. I don’t much care one way or another about the government unless I believe my presence in the country will help normalize the perception of a criminal state. In many (most) criminal states the people have little control over the actions of the government so my presence there among the people serves little incentive for any improvement. But it does help normalize the world perception of the criminal state. “Hey they cant be all that bad, they get 2,000,000 western visitors every year. People wouldn’t go if it were an evil place.” Then there are a few places where the culture as a whole practices human rights abuses. If a culture condemns a woman leaving the house on her own or driving a car I don’t think I would be too far out of line to suspect worse treatment as well. While my presence and the presence of 100,000 other tourist may help turn the tide through example, I just don’t want to spend my holiday that way.

When gathering information before making a decision what sources do
you use, how much time do you spend?

The mere fact we are discussing it makes it seem like we are beating it to death. But discussions are how hearts and minds are improved upon. Personally, I don’t beat it to death. I have some thresholds and below those thresholds I just know the world isn’t perfect.

am trying to combat the intolerance and hatred in "myself" and the
world by talking and interacting with one person at a time. I believe
that whatever "bad thing" I did by going to Cuba was outweighed by the
good that was done. I don't see how isolation or avoidance of contact
will help.

I don’t entirely agree, but it’s a very valid point and not beyond where I could find myself someday - I always try and keep and open mind.

Thanks for the reply.
I will continue to explore these questions.

I am trying to combat the intolerance and hatred in "myself" and the world by talking and interacting with one person at a time. I believe that whatever "bad thing" I did by going to Cuba was outweighed by the good that was done. I don't see how isolation or avoidance of contact will help.

I sort of mangled the reply on this one. One thing that meeting people, one at a time as individuals, does do is make the issues a lot more challenging and complex. I am not particularly pleased with Iran on a number of levels; but I have a number of Iranian friends and I love them to death. I also have Russian friends and you should know by now what I think of Russia. So I try and never confuse individuals with the larger picture. I wish the world were more like that in general.

Cuba is an interesting call. I am afraid that for the time being I
think “vacationing” in Cuba normalizes a criminal government. For
that reason, I won’t be going. But I have nothing against the people
and if I thought for a second that my visiting would make a difference
I would change my mind. It’s a place I am dying to see, but I have to
be consistent with my ethics.

Finally, I don’t go anyplace thinking my presence is doing good for anyone. I don’t have a feeling when traveling that I am promoting some great world cause. I don't try and rationalize my actions; I am on holiday for G-d’s sake and if something good comes out of my holiday, its unintentional and collateral. But yes, I do suppose there is some compounding when 1,000,000 tourists on holiday show up.

I do believe firmly in giving back. I started a thread here to try and create a list of charities where people could contribute when in one country or another; the tread was a flop. Plastic bottles got more interest. I try and dedicate a portion of my time to do something positive in the places I go. I don’t do it often enough as I should.

Carroll
*

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with the
idea of visiting a concentration camp. I think it's so important to
understand and remember what happened, and seeing them in person
really helps with that, especially for those who have not read about
or studied the topic. For me, visiting Auschwitz was also an
opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the victims. I was so happy to
have that opportunity even if it wasn't an enjoyable experience.

*

Hope you weren’t referring to me. I have no problem at all with people visiting camps. I think it’s a good education for most. I only got a little bent in another thread last year where some individual made the statement that if you hadn’t gone to one then you don’t understand. I thought that was pretty narrow minded and I know from experience it to be untrue. But then I will argue most absolute statements.

But you said you wanted

the opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the victims.

If you were moved and feel a connection, then let me suggest this. I think the best way to pay tribute is to pay tribute through the living. When you visit, find the local synagogue and contribute. Stop in on a Saturday morning and participate in services. Take flowers to the local holocaust monument.

James E---what is so "horrible" about Japan?

And you won't visit California, Oregon, or Washington because these states have a death penalty on the books? There are plenty of people working to change that. And in the meantime you are missing some of the best scenery in the US. And lots of interesting people.

Japan has the death penalty.... how horrible!!! Actually just kidding. But still not terribly interested in Asia. As for the death penalty, its not the death penalty I have the issue with, its the chance of making a mistake that bothers me. People aren't perfect and until they are I would rather avoid things that have no recourse if you screw up. Rather a few guilty walk free than an innocent get fried. AND, the death penalty is too painless . Some crimes deserve a lot more suffering.

As for California and Washington and Oregon. Honestly, I have only been to California and Washington. Washington is stunningly beautiful and parts of California are as well. Caught some beautiful fish on the Feather last year and will return. Again, just kidding.

Of course you will never catch me in Yuba County, CA; NEVER!

I see. So you were "just kidding" when you said Japan is a horrible place.

And you don't really boycott the three Pacific coast states you named, because you have visited two of them.

And your highly selective (3 states out of 32) death penalty "boucott" is not based on moral repugnance but (a) concern that it might be misapplied ( highly unlikely in these days of DNA tests and endless appeals) and (b) a belief it is not painful enough. (So you would prefer drawing and quartering?)

It all makes perfect sense.

I thought the statements might be thought provoking, and I guess since you inquired, it must have been successful.

Since the US was being judged on one aspect of its culture, cap. punishment, I was curious how it would feel to transfer that to another country. Sort of a self-test. Didn't resonate well for me. But I can see how some might feel strongly enough to establish the death penalty as a threshold.

The three states chosen were because of the irony of three very liberal, very progressive, states that still have the death penalty on the books. Sort of counter intuitive.

As for capital punishment in general, DNA or no DNA people are people and mistakes will be made and inconsistencies in application are also a problem for me. I could also argue it’s too expensive. As for drawing and quartering; that's pretty much the death penalty so I wouldn't support that. Really don't understand your statement?

Of course outlawing the death penalty would be legislating morality; wouldn’t it?

Webmistress / master: I will understand if you want to pull all this. It’s way off the ethics topic. My apologies.

You stated above that one of your objections to the death penalty is that it is "too painless"--- " some crimes deserve more suffering." That suggests you would like more painful methods to be applied, doesn't it? The non-capital punishment alternative, life in prison without parole, does not cause much suffering at all, so what else can you mean?

My confusion was why you would suspect that drawing and quartering would be more palatiable for me than any other form of death penalty? As for degrees of suffering, maybe a personal thing but I would rather be dead than locked in a cell for the rest of my life. But the main issue for me is the possibility for mistakes and biased use of the death penalty.

Drawing and quartering was an ironic statement, not serious. The death penalty cannot be made more painful without violationing the prohibition on "cruel and cruel and unusual" punishment. There have been arguments made that even lethal injection is cruel and unusual.

FWIW, I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any case, but for different reasons than yours.

I have friends with strong religious convictions who are totally opposed to it on moral grounds. I love them and respect their views. I wouldn't expect less from them and I admire them for their convictions. Maybe, just maybe, if I didn't have the "functional" issues with the death penalty I would find myself in conflict on moral grounds. Don't know. I do know that when ever some one is put to death I see it as a failure of society and nothing to celebrate.

James E., I just now saw your comment on my post about visiting concentration camps. I was not responding to anything you said, but rather to a thoughtful question from Mike Beebe.