# Ethics Personal or Not ?



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2007)

What are ethics to you?

To me, it starts with obeying the law, anything I do over and beyond that is personal.


----------



## Hammack (Nov 14, 2007)

I believe it is personal.  The definition of ethics is "a set of principles of right conduct"  with that being said what one person feels is right another is almost certain to disagree.


----------



## 243Savage (Nov 15, 2007)

Personal.


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

While some laws may be based on ethics but ehtics are not laws.  Ethics are a set of moral principles on which conduct is based.   I think society sets these moral principles.  Therefore, while I think ethics may vary from area to area or  region to region they are not personal but socialtal.  You could have personal ethics within that society but if they do not agree with or are not better than the society you associate with, you will not be part of that society and may be looked upon as unethical.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Nov 15, 2007)

Character and integrity are personal.

Ethics are accepted standards within a society that really have nothing to do with the law.


----------



## Muddyfoots (Nov 15, 2007)

Personal!!


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 15, 2007)

Ethics has two pieces to consider.  One is "absolute" and one is "relative."  

Absolute would say there are no exceptions, for example: killing someone.  Therefore it is ALWAYS unethical to kill a human.

Relative would say there are exceptions, for example: killing a human who is a home invader who is holding your child hostage and will kill you.  Therefore it is ethical to kill a human.

Ethics are different between different cultures and historical timelines,a nd vary even in our country.  Hunting deer with bait or corn is considered by many to be unethical today (to most), but is legal in some states.  So ethics does not always follow "legal" rules.

Ethics should be what you consider "Right or Wrong" and becaus ethat can vary so widely among individuals, I do not believe there is any simple answer.

All I can say is that I fall between absolute and relative in reference to Ethics.  My ethics hinge on what I believe, was taught, and as a Christian have learned, was  right or wrong.

Good post.  I saw a little ethics ping-pong in another thread and was thinking about this very thing.


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

If ethics were personal there would be no word for "unethical."


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Nov 15, 2007)

I agree with Randy.  What is right or wrong is, at least, generally agreed upon by the society in which one lives.

There is room for personal interpretation, and as long as they are inside the bounds of the law (which is basically a generally agreed upon set of ethics) that is fine, IMO.

There are somethings that are pretty black and white, but there are a lot of grey areas open to one's own interpretation.


----------



## elfiii (Nov 15, 2007)

Some may be "personal", but ethics as a whole represent the baseline of acceptible behaviour established by the society as a whole.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Nov 15, 2007)

For me ethics are personal, because in the end, I am responsible for my own actions...and I do not let society dictate what is acceptable or unacceptable...I will however obey the laws of a given society but only as long as those laws do not require me to violate my personal ethics 

If you look to society for "approval" then your ethics would be based on the cultural majority..consider the Sharia...no thank you


----------



## QuakerBoy (Nov 15, 2007)

elfiii said:


> Some may be "personal", but ethics as a whole represent the baseline of acceptible behaviour established by the society as a whole.



exactly...set by society as a whole...not by some small segment of a hunting message board


----------



## QuakerBoy (Nov 15, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Absolute would say there are no exceptions, for example: killing someone.  Therefore it is ALWAYS unethical to kill a human.



what if he is trying to harm me or my family and is armed


----------



## addictedtodeer (Nov 15, 2007)

I hold to absolute truth; therefore absolute right and wrong. Ethics are based on that truth.  What is right or wrong is not determined by society but by absolute truth.  That truth is founded by God and fulfilled by Christ.  What is right for him is right and what is wrong by him is wrong for all humanity. Hence our desperate need for Him. 
Society can set all the rules they want and excuse themselves all they want; God doesn't care what we determine in our own minds.


----------



## heyfuji (Nov 15, 2007)

Doing the right thing, more importantly, doing it even when no one is watching


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Nov 15, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> What is right for him is right and what is wrong by him is wrong for all humanity.



WWJD - Would Jesus shoot a spike that was eating from a corn pile?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

elfiii said:


> Some may be "personal", but ethics as a whole represent the baseline of acceptible behaviour established by the society as a whole.



With that thought in mind..........

And I agree.

So I guess this is my point, we have some that take this to the extreme with the attitude of you dont hunt like I do, therefore you are unethical. Usually those are the ones to jump the band wagon with the arrogant attitude of pointing fingers. I have often wondered who died and left them king.


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 15, 2007)

rpaul11 said:


> what if he is trying to harm me or my family and is armed



Read what I said in m y post about "relative."


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> I hold to absolute truth; therefore absolute right and wrong. Ethics are based on that truth.  What is right or wrong is not determined by society but by absolute truth.  That truth is founded by God and fulfilled by Christ.  What is right for him is right and what is wrong by him is wrong for all humanity. Hence our desperate need for Him.
> Society can set all the rules they want and excuse themselves all they want; God doesn't care what we determine in our own minds.



I had assume sine this was under the hunting fourm we are talking about hunting ethics is specific.  Not sure God has an opinion on ethical hunting.  Heck he might say it is all unethical.


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 15, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> WWJD - Would Jesus shoot a spike that was eating from a corn pile?



If he was hungry he would.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> WWJD - Would Jesus shoot a spike that was eating from a corn pile?




If it was legal, I dont see why he would not.


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> With that thought in mind..........
> 
> And I agree.
> 
> So I guess this is my point, we have some that take this to the extreme with the attitude of you dont hunt like I do, therefore you are unethical. Usually those are the ones to jump the band wagon with the arrogant attitude of pointing fingers. I have often wondered who died and left them king.



I am glad I do not fit in that thread!


----------



## shop foreman (Nov 15, 2007)

as it concerns deer hunting which is i assume what you ment spotlight obeying the set laws' using what you harvest, not harvesting more than you can use, to me are examples of ethical.cutting the hams off a deer and leaving the rest, leaving those remains on the side of a public road, cutting the head/rack off a buck and leaving it to the buzzards, trashing up the woods, unrespectful attitude toward local residents(shooting toward house hunting property lines etc. are some examples of unethical IMO.


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> If it was legal, I dont see why he would not.



Here is the crux of this issue or at least an example of societal ethics.  In this state, the sportsmen have decided that baiting is unethical.  The majority of sportsmen/women in this state feel baiting is unethical.  As such laws have been past reflecting this ethical stance (an example of a law based on ethics, although there are some other very good resource management reasons as well).  We have had and continue to have attacks on this ethical stance and law by persons who do not agree with this local society's ethics.  But so far society has stood up to these attacks.

The old saying "when in Rome" applies here!


----------



## elfiii (Nov 15, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> So I guess this is my point, we have some that take this to the extreme with the attitude of you dont hunt like I do, therefore you are unethical. Usually those are the ones to jump the band wagon with the arrogant attitude of pointing fingers. I have often wondered who died and left them king.



 Yes sir.


----------



## QuakerBoy (Nov 15, 2007)

Randy said:


> Here is the crux of this issue or at least an example of societal ethics.  In this state, the sportsmen have decided that baiting is unethical.  The majority of sportsmen/women in this state feel baiting is unethical.  As such laws have been past reflecting this ethical stance (an example of a law based on ethics, although there are some other very good resource management reasons as well).  We have had and continue to have attacks on this ethical stance and law by persons who do not agree with this local society's ethics.  But so far society has stood up to these attacks.
> 
> The old saying "when in Rome" applies here!



I don't believe that ethics have a regional boundaries as your example states.  If something is not ethical it is not ethical...not just "unethical in GA" or wherever.

If Ga doesn't want baiting...it is based on opinion, or deer management issues, or herd heatlth issues or a combination of these and maybe more factors.  Saying baiting is unethical would mean it is unethical anywhere...which is a personal opinion.  I'm sure the folks hunting in SC or Texas, or canada etc..etc...don't feel they are being unethical at all.  you were raised in an area where baiting is not legal as I was...therfore you may feel that it is not "right" but unethical is a real stretch on this issue IMO.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

rpaul11 said:


> I don't believe that ethics have a regional boundaries as your example states.  If something is not ethical it is not ethical...not just "unethical in GA" or wherever.
> 
> If Ga doesn't want baiting...it is based on opinion, or deer management issues, or herd heatlth issues or a combination of these and maybe more factors.  Saying baiting is unethical would mean it is unethical anywhere...which is a personal opinion.  I'm sure the folks hunting in SC or Texas, or canada etc..etc...don't feel they are being unethical at all.  you were raised in an area where baiting is not legal as I was...therfore you may feel that it is not "right" but unethical is a real stretch on this issue IMO.




Good post


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

Randy said:


> Here is the crux of this issue or at least an example of societal ethics.  In this state, the sportsmen have decided that baiting is unethical.  The majority of sportsmen/women in this state feel baiting is unethical.  As such laws have been past reflecting this ethical stance (an example of a law based on ethics, although there are some other very good resource management reasons as well).  We have had and continue to have attacks on this ethical stance and law by persons who do not agree with this local society's ethics.  But so far society has stood up to these attacks.
> 
> The old saying "when in Rome" applies here!



I dont think the majority feels that way. I think it is more like 50 / 50. Problem is alot could care less and dont have the time to parade the court house. Alot of us do not agree with with the 10 doe harvest, but, its there, and it does not mean that a person that fills his tags is unethical. It also means you dont have to fill your tags if you dont want to. That just depends on  how you feel about that. No right or wrong with it. The law is the baseline and beginning point, people choose to put standards on them self, thats great, but they are for that person only. I have a couple things I would not do;

1.  I will not kill more than 3 does in a season. I think it is overkill.

2.  I will not shoot a buck that I will not mount. I think it is a waste of a buck that someone else could have as a trophy.

But those are my standards and I dont have any right telling another man he is unethical for doing something I would not do.

As far as baiting, Rpaul nailed it down to a T, if the majority that represents the hunting world decided this was unethical, then how come is not across the board that covers every State?


----------



## dixie (Nov 15, 2007)

ethics are what you do when you think no one is watching


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

dixie said:


> ethics are what you do when you think no one is watching



There is alot of truth in those few words.

I even asked a question before, do the ethical remain ethical by them self? Talk about about short fuse, some has them.......


----------



## polaris30144 (Nov 15, 2007)

dixie said:


> ethics are what you do when you think no one is watching



Dixie, you nailed it !!!!!!!


----------



## jimbo4116 (Nov 15, 2007)

Ethics are a set of guidelines of what a society or culture accepts as reasonable behavior when dealing with other parties.  Being eithical is a personal decision.  

Ethics are most often linked to Honorable behavior and fairness in our society.

Things I considered the ethical thing to do.
Being truthful under all circumstances.
Being honest with the property of others.
Making every effort to keep your word to others.


----------



## fulldraw74 (Nov 15, 2007)

heyfuji said:


> Doing the right thing, more importantly, doing it even when no one is watching



Exactly......


----------



## fulldraw74 (Nov 15, 2007)

Personal............. 

 Ethics are personal decisions above and beyond the laws that the state says we as sportsman should follow...


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

I just wished I could get a list of unethical practices from the majority.

Not laws, but some examples of what they are calling unethical.


----------



## fulldraw74 (Nov 15, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> I just wished I could get a list of unethical practices from the majority.
> 
> Not laws, but some examples of what they are calling unethical.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Nov 15, 2007)

Integrity is doing what is right, even when nobody is watching.

Ethics are standards. Those standards are learned from your peers and leaders.

Like everything, there are extremist that believe they are right, therefore everyone else is wrong. Some hold them selves to higher standards, some believe anything legal is acceptable. 

Ethics can be regional, growing up hunting over bait is acceptable and ethical in many regions. In others it is frowned on as unethical. It depends on the accepted standards in the region.


----------



## dixie (Nov 15, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Integrity is doing what is right, even when nobody is watching.
> 
> Ethics are standards. Those standards are learned from your peers and leaders.
> 
> ...


Jeff, you know the difference in unlawful and illegal?


----------



## 243Savage (Nov 15, 2007)

dixie said:


> ethics are what you do when you think no one is watching






fulldraw74 said:


> Personal.............
> 
> Ethics are personal decisions above and beyond the laws that the state says we as sportsman should follow...



Thank you.  Some folks just can't seem to grasp the concept of personal beliefs, life experiences, etc, influencing ones own decision as to what is ethical.  The claim of the "majority" deciding what ethical rules apply to all is a weak argument IMO.  That simply means a larger number people hold the same beliefs about a given subject than those who have opposing beliefs.


----------



## QuakerBoy (Nov 15, 2007)

243Savage said:


> The claim of the "majority" deciding what ethical rules apply to all is a weak argument IMO.  That simply means a larger number people hold the same beliefs about a given subject than those who have opposing beliefs.



I agree...if that were the case...a handful of people changing their mind could make something that was unethical 2 weeks ago ethical today or vice versa.

ethics are not a majority opinion.

if etichs were a majority opinion...then one could argue that if a president and house camme into office and made abortion legal...that abortion could now be considered ethical..because a majority of states cast their electoral votes for those candidates thus approving of thier policies. 

ITS NOT THAT EASY FOLKS


----------



## FX Jenkins (Nov 15, 2007)

243Savage said:


> Thank you.  Some folks just can't seem to grasp the concept of personal beliefs, life experiences, etc, influencing ones own decision as to what is ethical.  The claim of the "majority" deciding what ethical rules apply to all is a weak argument IMO.  That simply means a larger number people hold the same beliefs about a given subject than those who have opposing beliefs.



Boy you are smarter than you look...

simply stated..

Just because its OK for the general public to hunt in a particular fashion, doesn't mean its OK for ME to hunt in a particular fashion..therefore ethics can be and are personal beyond the law


----------



## Buck (Nov 15, 2007)

Without a doubt, “personal and beyond the law” as FX stated...  Great thread Spotlite!!!


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2007)

Randy said:


> If ethics were personal there would be no word for "unethical."



I dont know about that. See attached.

The majority of the poll thinks it is a personal choice beyond the law.

Is the majority wrong this time?


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> The majority of the poll thinks it is a personal choice beyond the law.
> 
> Is the majority wrong this time?



First off that does not mean that only ethical people abide by the law.

Second is it a coincidence that the PSA's are the majority on this thread.  This is not a scientific poll so majority does not count!


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Integrity is doing what is right, even when nobody is watching.
> 
> Ethics are standards. Those standards are learned from your peers and leaders.
> 
> ...



At least somebody understands!


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

rpaul11 said:


> I agree...if that were the case...a handful of people changing their mind could make something that was unethical 2 weeks ago ethical today or vice versa.
> 
> ethics are not a majority opinion.
> 
> ...



Actually you make a great point.  Abortion is one that I'd bet in many areas of the country is considered unethical even though legal.  Just because something is legal does not make it ethical either.  Depends on your society.

Even some things that are illegal may be considered ethical.  I'd bet homosexuality is ethical in SanFrancisco.  But most of our society considers it unethical.


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

rpaul11 said:


> I agree...if that were the case...a handful of people changing their mind could make something that was unethical 2 weeks ago ethical today or vice versa.



When I say majority I do not mean a voting majority.  It is a cultural majority and it is not something that changes over night.  Cultures develope over time and over time ethics may change but it is not an overnight thing.


----------



## jason8047 (Nov 15, 2007)

This is a good thread.  I was just wondering the difference of ethics and morals.  Which are we talking about here or are they the same.


----------



## jason8047 (Nov 15, 2007)

On that note, my 2 new timers for my Kenco corn feeders jsut came in today. lol


----------



## Randy (Nov 15, 2007)

jason8047 said:


> This is a good thread.  I was just wondering the difference of ethics and morals.  Which are we talking about here or are they the same.



By definition:  ethics is a system of moral principles.  So ethics are based on morals.


----------



## jody7818 (Nov 15, 2007)

Goodness...you guys are blowin' my mind.    We need to open up a forum just on ethics and philosophy.    Ain't it hunting season?


----------



## jason8047 (Nov 15, 2007)

I guess ethics depends on what you are talking about.  Abortion I think is morally wrong legal or not.  Hunting ethics varies from person to person just as morals varies from person to person.  Everyone has their own ideas of what should be ethical and what is unethical.  There are people who think shooting a deer period is just aweful but see nothing wrong with abortion.  On the subject of hunting, I think that you should do your best to follow the laws of where you are hunting and respect those laws.  If you want try and get the ones you dont agree with changed but until then abide by whats there.  Ethically I see nothing wrong with hunting over bait and I do it when its legal, but when I hunt in GA I wont because its illegal.  Thats my ethical choice, but then again I usually drive 80 mph to get to my club and thats against the law.


----------



## dixie (Nov 15, 2007)

Ethics, a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good living. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong-------------------------------------1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility 
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness 
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness 
synonyms see honesty------------------------------------------------------------- UNethical 1 a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort
2: something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a: the state of being mistaken or incorrect b: the state of being guilty
synonyms see injustice


----------



## 243Savage (Nov 15, 2007)

Randy said:


> First off that does not mean that only ethical people abide by the law.
> 
> Second is it a coincidence that the PSA's are the majority on this thread.  This is not a scientific poll so majority does not count!



That accounts for all of...umm....10 of the yes votes.


----------



## gordoshawt (Nov 15, 2007)

Any sport is based on personal preference. When I was a pitcher and wou;ld field a bunt it was easy for me to throw the ball to first while on the run, even though my pitching coach thought it was a sin. Now I know pitching and hunting don't have a whole lot to do with each other, but the one thing they do have in common is confidence and comfort. If I am confident to take a long shot, then I will. The same with throwing a 3-2 slider; If I felt like I could get it near the plate to make the hitter get himself out I would throw it.


If you are comfortable within yourself to harvest 7 deer a year then do it. 

No one can tell you what is right and what is wrong within the law, it is something you have to figure out on your own. If you have confidence in your self, you have already won half of the battle.


----------



## K80 (Nov 15, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Integrity is doing what is right, even when nobody is watching.
> 
> Ethics are standards. Those standards are learned from your peers and leaders.
> 
> ...



Jeff is exactly right.

Although, when it comes to hunting what may be ethical for one person may not be ethical for another person for example it may be ethical for a person that spends a lot of time practicing long range shots to shoot a deer at 400+ yards but it would not be ethical for me to shoot at a deer at 300+ yards because I do not spend the time at the range that would be needed to be proficient at that range.

Lets look at a few professions such as appraisers, lawyers, doctors, and etc are all required by law to follow a code of ethics and if they do not they can loose their license to practice in their chosen profession.  If ethics were personal then their would not be a set of ethics for these professions to follow because everyone would make their own ethics.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2007)

Randy said:


> First off that does not mean that only ethical people abide by the law.
> 
> Second is it a coincidence that the PSA's are the majority on this thread.  This is not a scientific poll so majority does not count!



Your right, from time to time some unethical folks abide by the law in some cases.

Sometimes ethical folks have been known to face the dreary hall of shame

And, you make a great point, the minority (the small group)always scream unfair vote, polls dont count ..................

Ethics are nothing more than values, they are not rules set by anybody or any group for any body else other than them. It is a conduct excepted by the majority and here in GA as a whole, we except killing a 5 point that has 4 on one side, we except killing a yearling, we except crossbows and so forth. Those are ethical choices excepted by the majority of GA hunters.


----------



## fulldraw74 (Nov 16, 2007)

Randy said:


> By definition:  ethics is a system of moral principles.  So ethics are based on morals.



A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves. 
Sounds like a moral could be opinionated.....


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 16, 2007)

fulldraw74 said:


> A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves.
> Sounds like a moral could be opinionated.....



I thought it was mushroom?  My Grandma use to pick 'em.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2007)

K80shooter said:


> Jeff is exactly right.
> 
> Although, when it comes to hunting what may be ethical for one person may not be ethical for another person for example it may be ethical for a person that spends a lot of time practicing long range shots to shoot a deer at 400+ yards but it would not be ethical for me to shoot at a deer at 300+ yards because I do not spend the time at the range that would be needed to be proficient at that range.
> 
> Lets look at a few professions such as appraisers, lawyers, doctors, and etc are all required by law to follow a code of ethics and if they do not they can loose their license to practice in their chosen profession.  If ethics were personal then their would not be a set of ethics for these professions to follow because everyone would make their own ethics.



But that is exactly what happens in the hunting world. 

There is no set to follow, you have groups that judge according to the way they hunt.


You can find just about anything you need to learn about ethics and hunting taking the on line hunters safety course. Even if you have took it or dont need to take it, give it a try, its a great refresher course.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Nov 16, 2007)

K80shooter said:


> If ethics were personal then their would not be a set of ethics for these professions to follow because everyone would make their own ethics.



I'm not saying Ethics cannot be applied by the majority or even influenced by the majority...In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that ethical principals are the cornerstone of a society, organization, company, or profession...but where I beg to differ is that I do not let the majority determine what is ethical for me personally...so therefore we cannot ignore the personal element of ethics either..unless you in fact let the majority determine what is right and wrong for you...

Hunting exp:  In some regions, its ethical to hunt deer with dogs...thats fine for them and I recognize that form of hunting as part of their tradition and I won't snub my nose at it but I won't hunt in that fashion because its just not ethical for me.


----------



## HuntinTom (Nov 16, 2007)

I was a sociology major in college - I could write a dissertation on this -- Oh, wait.  I did!  -- I won't bore you with the details, but only say:  It can be both...  

But in the context I often see it used on forums like these pertaining to hunting -- People are often talking more about personal _preference _than actual _ethics_...


----------



## grim (Nov 16, 2007)

HuntinTom said:


> But in the context I often see it used on forums like these pertaining to hunting -- People are often talking more about personal _preference _than actual _ethics_...




Very true.

The easiest test for determining if something was ethical is to ask yourself -  Would I want this action to be posted on the front page of the newspaper with my picture next to it?  If the answer is No, then it probably isnt ethical.

There are exceptions (like riding a moped), but generally, it works.


----------



## Randy (Nov 16, 2007)

grim said:


> Very true.
> 
> The easiest test for determining if something was ethical is to ask yourself -  Would I want this action to be posted on the front page of the newspaper with my picture next to it?  If the answer is No, then it probably isnt ethical.
> 
> There are exceptions (like riding a moped), but generally, it works.



Depends on what paper it is printed in and who's reading the paper.


----------



## grim (Nov 16, 2007)

Randy said:


> Depends on what paper it is printed in and who's reading the paper.




Situational Ethics?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2007)

grim said:


> Very true.
> 
> The easiest test for determining if something was ethical is to ask yourself -  Would I want this action to be posted on the front page of the newspaper with my picture next to it?  If the answer is No, then it probably isnt ethical.
> 
> There are exceptions (like riding a moped), but generally, it works.



Very good post. Surely if your not ashamed of what you did, your not unethical for doing it.


----------



## Randy (Nov 16, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Very good post. Surely if your not ashamed of what you did, your not unethical for doing it.



Yes you may be considered unethical even if you are not ashamed of it!


----------



## Randy (Nov 16, 2007)

This might be a good example (though I am sure somebody can find fault wiht the analogy):

Some men (and women for that matter) go to strip joints.  Yet I would say a vast majority of people in the south east would say that strip joints are unethical.  Even though you may not feel guilty for going you may be considered by the vast majority as unethical for going if they found out.  You might not even care if they say you are unethical yet you would be considered as such.  It is not againist the law to go to one but considered unethical by the majority I would assume.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2007)

Randy said:


> This might be a good example (though I am sure somebody can find fault wiht the analogy):
> 
> Some men (and women for that matter) go to strip joints.  Yet I would say a vast majority of people in the south east would say that strip joints are unethical.  Even though you may not feel guilty for going you may be considered by the vast majority as unethical for going if they found out.  You might not even care if they say you are unethical yet you would be considered as such.  It is not againist the law to go to one but considered unethical by the majority I would assume.



Well thats a good analogy. Makes alot of sense. But take into consideration that the one going to the strip club was probably raised and taught it was ok and that person may look upon someone who will not go in a strip club as unethical for something different.

Point being, depending on what your taught to accept is where you lay your boundaries for your code of conduct. With that said, its not up to one group to point fingers at another group because of a difference in thew way they were taught.    

Things such as, killing a yearling. Its legal, but one was taught to let it walk and one was taught it was OK. Thats why I say its more of a personal issue as to a society issue. 

A personal situation comes from the heart knowing what is right and wrong and a society situation comes from "I want to be accepted"

And there are those that jump fast and say "you shot so and so your unethical", thats the soap boxers I cant stand to share the woods with. To be so arrogant as to criticize another man for what he legally shot is about as childish as it comes.


----------



## fulldraw74 (Nov 16, 2007)

> And there are those that jump fast and say "you shot so and so your unethical", thats the soap boxers I cant stand to share the woods with. To be so arrogant as to criticize another man for what he legally shot is about as childish as it comes



AMEN!!!!    Thats the ones i'm sick of hearing talk also.....


----------



## Randy (Nov 16, 2007)

OK  I am defeated!  If I can not explain it to you in a week or you refuse to listen to it in a week, it is apparent that there is no such thing as ethics to you.  Despite the fact that there is a definiton of ethical and unethical and the fact that there are ethics we have determined that they do not exist and the words need to be striken for the dictionary.  Case closed


----------



## fulldraw74 (Nov 16, 2007)

Randy said:


> OK  I am defeated!  If I can not explain it to you in a week or you refuse to listen to it in a week, it is apparent that there is no such thing as ethics to you.  Despite the fact that there is a definiton of ethical and unethical and the fact that there are ethics we have determined that they do not exist and the words need to be striken for the dictionary.  Case closed



And the minority gets a little smaller.........


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2007)

Randy said:


> OK  I am defeated!  If I can not explain it to you in a week or you refuse to listen to it in a week,
> 
> it is apparent that there is no such thing as ethics to you.
> 
> Despite the fact that there is a definiton of ethical and unethical and the fact that there are ethics we have determined that they do not exist and the words need to be striken for the dictionary.  Case closed



I would love to see the definition you have. Bet its gonna say something like a conduct accepted by the majority. I think the majority has spoken here.

And the words in red are a joke


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2007)

fulldraw74 said:


> And the minority gets a little smaller.........



So is the shoe going on the foot


----------

