BS: Ethics

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 12:55 PM

Well of course it doesn't make any sense. An entity whose scope is all Creation cannot by definition be exterior, and what you do with your body parts is your own business!

I'd deluge you with another 20,000 words on the subject, but I've got to go downtown right now...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 04:32 PM

And then again, how can one imagine the infinite anyway? I think you are probably mistaken in your theoretical assumption that God is (or needs to be) fixated on any of your activities, Amos. :-) I would think that at best he/she/it is merely mildly interested in a compassionate sense, certainly not fixated, while, of course, being involved at the cellular and energetic level in an unprejudiced and egalitarian manner...meaning with everyone else at the same level.

What I'm saying is that the supreme being is not required to fit inside the definitions that various people and religions have concocted concerning it. This applies equally well to the opinions of religious people and atheists both, not to mention agnostics and existentialists.

Don't bug me if you can't believe in the only God you are capable of imagining when you hear the word "God".

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 05:17 PM

Don't worry, LH!! I am sure I won't be bugging you to define God for me, and I assure you I was only addressing a local aberration, not my cosmology by any means, Sorry I didn't ensure that you could   understand that, lard brain. It was probably my fault.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 05:56 PM

LOL! Right you are, Amos. I deliberately misunderstand you sometimes, just to be annoying... You have rightly referred to me as "lard brain" this time. Maybe all this jousting with Clinton Hammond is causing me to become anti-social or something. Either that or it's the mold in my carpet.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 06:20 PM

I have the same thing in the office -- every time I go there to work for the company, mold sets up a whirring in my brain and I can't think straight. Either that or there are certain psychological stances that have the exact same effect as mold in the air.
A good argument for the psychosomatic theory of medicine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mark Clark
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 06:42 PM

And I didn't mean to be defining God for anyone either. I only meant that most moral codes are handed down from someone's god or other. If we're talking about moral codes that don't need any higher authority for universal applicability, what would those be? And why would they exist?

Most atheists I know hold to a higher (to my way of thinking) set of moral and ethical standards than most Christians I know. One problem I have with most Christians is that they mistakenly believe God wants them "fix" everyone else, by force if need be. I see that as a most un-Christian point of view. You don't see Buddhists running around doing that, or atheists either for that matter.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 07:19 PM

Morals are arbitrary and local to a culture or a sub-culture (such as a church or an ethnic group). They are sustained by agreement and the reason you feel bad about violating a more (such as not covering yourself in church or eating the wrong food on the wrong day) is because of the broken agreement, not because you feel you've done something harmful per se. But the rationality of seeking right action and doing whatever is the greatest good is inherent in human rationality and derives from universal principles, not local ones. If you violate your own sense of ethics, you feel bad because you know you've done less than good by your own reason, whether or not others have agreed--which is a lot more painful.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 07:25 PM

Much of the time there seems to be general consensus about ethical principles - but when it comes to applying them to real situations and deciding what are the appropriate exceptions that the problems come in.

Like, we might find we are fully agreed that theft is wrong - but the you say "Theft means when anyone takes my property", and I say "Property is theft" and it's pretty clear we disagree about some important details.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:12 PM

Amos-While I agree in principle, I'm not sure whether there can be any "right action" which isn't purely subjective without some agency beyond humanity handing down the necessary principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:17 PM

without some agency beyond humanity handing down the necessary principles.


         

That sure ain't gonna happen, FL!!

And if it did, I would be inclined to double check their arithmytick.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:19 PM

Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, and one which I share. Unfortunately, it throws into question whether any morality can exist beside the purely subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Joybell
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 09:14 PM

Oh! dear slept in again! This wonderful thread has already run off in all directions and I do so want to get enlightenment. Wait for me wait for me. I need time to study the jellyfish and the mould and the station will be empty and the train gone before I'm packed and ready. I have just one comment that hasn't been addressed as far as I can tell. -- If you are going to do animal testing then I do think it is only fair to allow them the time to study up first. I feel strongly about that as one who never seems to be ready.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 10:53 PM

"Purely subjective" morality is probably the purest and most moral sort there is, pal! You certainly are not going to find the sense of justice anywhere in material systems; it is a spiritual value, in the final analysis. Objectivity has its uses, true, but it is not a be-all or end-all!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 02:15 AM

The problem with purely subjective morality is that it provides no way in which people can agree on morality, excepting expedience. If all morality is subjective, it is no more wrong for me to kill someone than for me to eat yogurt, should I not have any more moral compunctions regarding one than the other. This strikes me as a flimsy way to build a societal contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 12:20 PM

Hmmmm. Well, I agree that most ethical notions are arbitrary, and depend upon cultural agreements, but...

Here's my notion of very basic ethics:

That which is in favour of life and liveliness, in a general sense, is positive (helpful, constructive) while that which is opposed to life and liveliness, in a general sense, is negative (harmful, destructive).

Example: Smashing up property is harmful. Building a house or a piece of furniture is helpful. Being crabby and hostile is negative. Being cheerful and friendly is positive. Being cowardly is negative, being courageous is positive. And so on...

I believe it is from such very basic things that societies and cultures develop most (but not necessarily all) of their ideas about ethics. It's pretty simple really.

A clever mind can always propose exceptions to the above, but as a general guideline I think it works.

Going by that guideline, I should pay attention and learn to be less crabby and critical at times, obviously... :-)

- LH

p.s. Mark - I have known of at least 2 atheists in this area who DID go about trying to force everyone else to be atheist too, by persuasion, harassment, legal action, etc...so it can happen. But fortunately it's rather rare. In some of the Communist societies you had a whole government that was forcing everyone to be outwardly atheist! Of course, what they were really doing was trying to supplant older God-based religions with a new materially-based one called "Communism". Same old shit in a brand new package, complete with its very own holy scriptures and prophets (Marx & Engels).

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 01:05 PM

Amos-While that's a pretty workable scheme in general, it doesn't have any more moral weight to it than "every man for himself" or any other system. If only humans make moral codes, then every human-made moral code has equal weight, subject only to one's ability and willingness to impose your code on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 01:19 PM

There are any number of animal species which have moral codes too, and most of the individuals can be seen to conform to those codes pretty consistently, while those who don't get into trouble with the rank and file. Observe wolves, elephants, herd animals, etc., for evidence of this. Crows, who have a complex community life, have even been know to hold what certainly appear to be "trials" over an individual crow who has violated the code. They all discuss it for awhile. Then, if he's found guilty, they kill him (or her as the case may be).

As I said before, actions which are plainly constructive are generally seen as good by most if not all community members, while actions that are plainly destructive are seen as bad by pretty well everyone except the perpetrator.

Thus, our ideas about ethics are not entirely arbitrary by any means.

Most people are inclined to be fairly constructive most of the time, unless they are suffering great fear, and upon that is based our considerable ability to cooperate and form healthy societies...as do wolves, crows, and elephants.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 05:18 PM

If only humans make moral codes, then every human-made moral code has equal weight, subject only to one's ability and willingness to impose your code on others.

I'm a Jeffersonian, and I have a high degree of confidence in rational humanity recognizing rationality. I have also learned to expect that irrational humanity will gravitate toward irrationality. Moral codes are not the point; the ability of the individual to reason with clarity toward a positive goal of some kind is the point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 05:44 PM

Exactly. Responsible leaders encourage people to reason with clarity toward positive goals. Irresponsible leaders encourage people to react emotionally and disregard reason (or use it only very selectively in service of their own prejudices)...usually with very negative results for someone, if not everyone. The South and the North in the 1860's could, with a measure of goodwill and reason on both sides, have avoided fighting the Civil War, for instance, but instead they got very emotional and punitive, and fell right into the gaping abyss. Five years later, could anyone have asserted that it was "a good idea"? Slavery would have died a natural death in any case, not too far down the line.

Now, a philosophy that asserts that all ethics are simply arbitrary and that life, in effect, has no meaning opens the door to the most destructive and disastrous actions imaginable....like, for instance, creating atomic bombs or even hydrogen bombs, and atomizing cities full of people with them.

Of course, fanatics who think life does have meaning (according to their particular religion) sometimes do such things too, in the name of their religion.

It comes back to the basics. Are you building and assisting life in a general sense or are you destroying it? If one is destroying life wholesale in the name of liberty, freedom, or Christ I suspect that there is a massive exercise in hypocrisy going forward under the usual patriotic banners.

The real game in such cases is not the establishment of liberty or freedom nor is it in service to Christ...it's merely "winning" an insane competitive game that should never have been played in the first place.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,devilsadvocate
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 05:53 PM

on pre-emptive strikes
in 1934 Poland made an offer to France that they fight a pre-emptive war against Nazi Germany. it didnt happen although it mightve saved millions of lives.

in 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak Nuclear reactor in Baghdad
(a nuclear reactor in one of the worlds most oil rich nations)
an act condemned around the world, but tacitly supported by most of the powers. (morally justified - absolutely although the only casualty was a French physicist)

when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, in the late 70s' and ended PolPots murderous bloodbath, it certainly doesnt fit Little Hawks moral principles of war - self defence, etc. and yet there was very little
international opposition to the invasion - Even though the Vietnamese reasons were far from humanitarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:16 PM

This is actually an interesting conversation!! Thanks, guys and gals!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:41 PM

Very good, devilsadvocate. I agree that there can be occasional exceptions to virtually any particular rule anyone can lay down.

I have always felt that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was, under the circumstances, the best thing that could have happened there at the time. The alternatives were absolutely horrible.

Vietnam's destruction of the Pol Pot regime, in fact, was an action which in the broad sense ended up being very much in favour of life and liveliness in that part of the World. Pol Pot's regime was about as opposed to life as any regime I've ever heard of.

I totally support Vietnam's pre-emptive attack on the Khymer Rouge, and it's about the only example of its sort I can think of that I do support.

I am less inclined to look favourably on the other 2 scenarios you cited, although I understand the argument in both cases.

A French-Polish attack on Germany was not justified.

But...if the British and French had supported Czechoslovakia more strongly in '38...or even if the Czechs had decided alone to stand and fight...the German Army generals would have arrested Hitler and Goering and shut down the Nazis, and that would have been the end of it. No war necessary at all in that case. It's recorded. It's a fact. And it's a great shame it didn't happen.

The Czechs had 88mm guns and excellent border defenses that would very likely have turned a German assault into a disaster, and the German military staff knew it. They were absolutely ready to overthrow the government at a moments notice if the order to attack was given. Hitler got lucky, very lucky, because the French, the British, and the Czechs lost their nerve. Too bad for Germany and Europe!

I do not support Israel's attack on the reactor.

So I guess Vietnam's strike on Cambodia remains the one and only pre-emptive strike in modern times that I do support wholeheartedly.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,devilsadvocate
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 08:39 PM

Im aware of Czech history, being one myself, the fact is not so much they lost their nerve but they were sold out by both their so-called allies the French and British who were trying to get peace with honour and got neither (to quote Churchill)

I doubt the Germans would have been repulsed that easily, despite the border fortifications - but it probably would have slowed them down.

the overthrow of Bokassa, Idi Amin etc are other examples of justifiable military interventions - simply for humanitarian reasons.

I wonder how many others supported Saddams right to nuclear weapons.
certainly gulf war II and III would have been different.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 10:47 PM

I have been told by one who studies war that the bulk of the German weapons which made blitzkrieg effective were either taken from Czech armories or developed from those same weapons.

On the original thread, while "constructive" and "destructive" are generally useful labels, there are many activities which fall into one category on a societal level and another on an individual level. Similarly, the long-term effects of any action may differ greatly from the short-term. This makes it much trickier to analyze the "rightness" of any action, even if we could agree on the extent of the area in which "constructive" and "destructive" should be measured.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 05:48 PM

I suspect most people who were aware of it, around the world , and even in the USA, felt sympathetic towards Vietnam in this action. However this didn't register with the US Government. In fact, as I understand it, the Vietnamese invasion against Pol Pot was used by the USA as grounds for continuing to impose sanctions against Vietnam for years.

Still, that's thread drift. It'd be better in a thread of its own maybe?

Little Hawk says "Smashing up property is harmful. Building a house or a piece of furniture is helpful." Surely that depends on the property, and on where the house is built and stuff like that? There is property that is better off destroyed, and buildings that should never be put up. And, of course, building a house might well involve smashing up the property of the people who lived there before the house builders came along.

No one has mentioned Kant's categorical imperative, which seems a pretty good basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong: "Act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law."

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 06:48 PM

Yep. Like I said, reality will generally provide various exceptions to any verbal or written rule of rightful conduct. That's why we need wise and compassionate people to come up with original solutions to unique situations more than we need another set of rules.

My father is Czech too, devilsadvocate, interestingly enough. He would agree with you that the British and French failed Czechoslovakia, but he also feels that the Czech leader (Benes?) did indeed lose his nerve at the critical moment.

My point was that the German attack would never have occurred at all, had the Czechs been resolved to fight, because the Wehrmacht was not well enough equipped yet in '38, and the German generals knew it, and they were prepared to arrest Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and the whole nasty lot and declare martial law in Germany if the order to attack was given. In the event, the order didn't have to be given, because Benes knuckled under. It was actually the last real chance for peace. By '39 the Wehrmacht WAS strong enough to wage real war. They had also acquired several hundred excellent tanks and the matchless 88 mm Flak guns from Czechoslovakia, and went on to win big in '39 and '40 and '41 using those very weapons along with their own excellent Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks...and the Luftwaffe, the World's foremost airforce at that time.

I think you're probably quite right about Idi Amin and Mr Bokassa, but I'm not well enough informed on those wars to really have a solid opinion.

McGrath - Okay, let me rephrase it: Smashing up property that is valuable and useful to its rightful owners and harmless to everyone and everything else is a destructive act. Building such property is constructive.

See how tricky and limited words are? I'm sure someone can come up with an exception even to that, but they can hardly pretend they don't know what I mean by the statement.

I am reminded of those old puzzles, like: You're driving down a narrow mountain road. You come around a hairpin turn. There's a child on the road. There's a truck out of control coming right at you the other way. There's a cliff. Do you - turn right and go off the cliff to save the child? Do you - go left and pile headon into the truck or the rock wall? Do you hit the brakes, slide into the child and probably the truck too and kill everybody? Etc..etc...etc...

The only useful way to respond to that sort of manipulative crap is say to the questioner, "Do you really enjoy dreaming up imaginary BS like this to cause other people mental distress? If so, maybe you should seek counseling..."

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 07:03 PM

Do you hit the brakes, slide into the child and probably the truck too and kill everybody?

That's the most likely thing to happen. That kind of question masquerades as a question about morality, but it isn't, it's about psychology. In practice , in that situation you'd be acting on instinct, modified by the way you've been behaving all your life. (If the question was "Sitting in an archchair, what do you think would be the best outcome" it'd be completely different - and pretty irrelevant.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 07:16 PM

Exactly. It's an attempt on the part of the questioner to mindfuck the other person (mainly for the amusement of the questioner).

Nobody really knows what they'll do in such situations until those situations actually happen, and then they respond, as you say, instinctively.

I really don't like it much when people talk about stuff like this just in order to demonstrate their mental cleverness and "win" the discussion, rather than because they actually believe in something meaningful. Who cares if they "win"? What difference could it possibly make to anything real? Will anyone care next year?

We all know perfectly well what right and wrong are in our hearts. It's dead simple most of the time. That's why young children have such a keen sense of injustice. They haven't become sophisticated enough yet to indulge in the sort of intellectual dishonesty that older people routinely do in order to sound clever and win arguments.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 02:53 PM

ACTION

We would often be ashamed of our best actions
if the world knew the motives behind them.

       Francois De La Rochefoucauld

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 03:30 PM

You're driving down a narrow mountain road. You come around a hairpin turn. There's a child on the road. There's a truck out of control coming right at you the other way. Little Hawk, are both you and the truck going downhill, even though you are meeting head on?

As for humankind, if it should happen that we are the ants in an antfarm, carried/cared for by some humongous being whose existence we are barely able to postulate (think of a gnat or midge, perhaps, versus human beings), what then?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 02:31 PM

Little Hawk: "I am reminded of those old puzzles, like: You're driving down a narrow mountain road. You come around a hairpin turn. There's a child on the road. There's a truck out of control coming right at you the other way. There's a cliff. Do you - turn right and go off the cliff to save the child? Do you - go left and pile headon into the truck or the rock wall? Do you hit the brakes, slide into the child and probably the truck too and kill everybody? Etc..etc...etc..."
It's a no-win situation, like the Kobyashi Maru, Better ask your mate James T how to handle it

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:31 PM

OK, I had an ethical question, and this seems the best place to pose it rather than starting another thread: What are the ethics of cat adoption of found animals? A local stray (no collar, no visible attachment to any particular place) has started hanging around our house, and the twins have started feeding her, and she is very sweet and apparently fairly old, very well-behaved, very friendly... do I *have* to put out flyers saying Found lost cat? Or can I just keep her...? (Of course I will be taking her to the vet and all but what about the basic ethical question of do I have to publicize her being found, given that she had no collar?) Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:49 PM

Yes advertise. Her collar may have come off, they can do. She may be 'chipped' with her owners details,you should know after the visit to the vet.

There may be some white haired old lady, softly crying into her cocoa at the loss of Flossie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:02 PM

It's possible. You don't have to. What you HAVE to is what you decide to do! :-)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:03 PM

it's polite & reasonable to at least put up some flyers on poles in the neighborhood...someone may know where it came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:20 PM

But then I'd have to give her back! Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:42 PM

Yup that's the down side. But the white haired old lady and leaves all her zillions to you in her will.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:46 PM

Mrrzy - Sounds like my cat. She's so easy that she'll follow you home if you pet her. Feed her and she thinks you belong to her.

If you stop feeding her, she may wander back home. Now that you have started feeding her, I think you are obligated to post some signs saying you've found her.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 12:18 AM

At least call the pound and/or SPCA to see if any one is looking for her. If nothing else, they would have a bigger emotional investment than you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 12:37 AM

Legally I reckon you could keep the cat.
morally i reckon you should ask around your street and maybe the next street, to see if anyone has lost their pet.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:26 AM

Abortion-Right or wrong? WRONG FOR ME - RIGHT FOR SOMEONE ELSE (THEIR CHOICE - THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION)

Capital Punisment - WRONG - BECAUSE THERE ARE WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

Eauthanasia - PERSONAL DECISION (IF I WERE IN PAIN, I WOULD WANT THE OPTION)

Experiments on Animals - WRONG

War - WRONG

d

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:42 AM

dianavan-i agree with all except the experiments on animals,
i am in favour of vivisection for medical research, though NOT for cosmetics and shampoo etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 02:35 AM

OK - I was struggling with that question.

Animals for medical research - yes

Cosmetics and shampoos - no

d

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 09:11 AM

Another disagreement. Was the war against Hitler wrong? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:21 PM

The way I heerd it, all human cultures forbid murder, theft and incest. (Anything else is a political crime.) That's as basic as you can get.

And it sounds reasonable, except they don't all define murder, theft and incest the same, & it's the definitions that have the devil in them, and the definitions that fill up most of the arguments.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 11:19 PM

Incest wasn't forbidden in all cases. On occasion it was mandatory. ie. Pharoahs in Egypt.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Bert
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 11:51 PM

Abortion-Right or wrong?
a tragedy, but sometimes necessary and very rarely my decision.

Capital Punisment " "
Wrong because justice is so often flawed. If I could always be 100% certain then I know that there are people in this world that we don't need.

Eauthanasia       " "
Wrong because even informed consent can be cooerced. But if someone I loved was asking for release then I'd do it regardless of the consequenses.

Experiments on Animals " "
Difficult because we eat animals and that certainly doesn't do them much good. However most of us are opposed to obvious cruelty.

War "   "
Offensive No, Defensive Yes. But once you get started it becomes difficult to tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 02:34 AM

98

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:16 AM

Mrrzzy, I wouldn't go much by the lack of a collar but perhaps that is another of those us vs uk differences with keeping cats. None of our cats have ever worn collars (except sometimes flea collars) and I rarely see a cat with a collar.

We try to go by the circumstaces. In your case, it seems almost certain that the cat had a good owner at least until recently. I would try to reunite cat with owner.

If you do what I think you should do and you found yourself having to give the cat back, it's not the end of the world. I don't know/can't remember what I've been told about the situation in the us but I feel sure there must be animal shelters and cats crying out for good homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:18 AM

8-{E