Cultural and religious practices can be discussed from an ethical perspective; there is no problem with that. The problem arises when these discussions are not conducted using the same criteria. Some Christian circles describe Muslims’ practice of Eid al-Adha as “ethically troubling” or “problematic.” This view can be expressed. However, an ethical evaluation cannot be made solely by examining the practices of others; it must also involve examining one’s own traditions with the same calm and critical distance.

In Eid al-Adha, the slaughter of animals serves the purpose of food production and sharing. The meat is consumed within families, and a significant portion is distributed to those in need. The hide, organs, and other parts of the animal are also used. In this sense, the practice represents a ritualized form—centered on solidarity and sharing—of animal-based food production that already exists across modern societies. If this practice is to be criticized, the focus should not be on a single holiday, but on meat consumption as a whole. Otherwise, ethical consistency cannot be maintained.

The widespread cutting of live pine trees during the Christmas season presents a different picture. The purpose of this practice is not nourishment or a basic жизнal need, but a symbolic and decorative tradition. Every year, millions of trees are cut for short-term use and then largely discarded or disposed of inefficiently. The ethical question here is clear: how defensible is the sacrifice of a living organism for temporary visual appeal? If the ethical criteria are “unnecessary harm” and “waste,” then this practice must be examined with the same level of scrutiny.

The aim of this comparison is not to decide “who is right.” The aim is to ensure that ethical language remains universal. A perspective that labels one practice as “ethically problematic” must be willing to evaluate its own traditions—especially those involving comparable or greater levels of waste and environmental impact—by the same standards. Otherwise, ethical discourse ceases to be universal and becomes a form of selective morality.

In conclusion, it is legitimate to question Eid al-Adha from an ethical standpoint. However, when such questioning is detached from context and comparison, it fails to be persuasive. What is ethical is not judging, but applying the same scale to everyone. Without consistency, there can be no ethics.

This assessment is not made to take sides, but to make visible a neutral ethical conclusion that emerges when cultural and religious practices are examined using the same ethical criteria.