ORIGINAL: Lanse couche couche
Sylvan,
Excellent analysis and comments. However, we differ somewhat in this area, since I see things as going a bit beyond just self-interest.Therefore, the willingness to accept the legal consequences, to me, representsadherence toanotherset of ethics. And no, I'm not arguing that any breaking of laws canbe justified as ethical simply because one iswilling to accept the consequences.The closest parallel that i could thing of would be acts ofcivil disobediance where one commits a "criminal" act in pursuit of a supposedly higher moral goal. But in such situations one cannot expect sympathy from the law or some of their peers, although they sometimes do get it from both.
Thank you Lanse. I don't think we're far apart at all. I agree completely with the concept of a "higher moral goal". The analogy here might be theone ofthe child drowning in a swimming pool and the signs around the pool say "no tresspassing for any reason". Clearly the ethical and moral thing to do is save the child.It without question trumps the ethical responsibility to respect the tresspass law. I simply don't feel that retrieving a deer to save some meat from becoming food for scavengers rises anywhere nearthat moral equivalency.IMO it simply fails that test miserably and comes down to again imo simply the hunter raionalizing his willingness to break the law merely to gain what he wants.It is a selfish act as opposed to the selfless act of saving the child. His motivation is not any "higher moral goal". He just wants his deer. But again, I don't believe it is the hunters moral dilema in the first place but rather that of the landowner. Like I said, I believethe hunters moral obligation is to urge the landowner to do whathe believes is the right thing and lethim retrieve the deer.