The Ethical Woodsman

If August's wife DID have a liscense, but did not ACTUALLY CATCH THE FISH, and he caught 8 fish total, would you be OK with that?


Carl-
 
On the contrary I agree with everything you wrote, it is the honest, absolute truth. If I ever get caught I will pay what the court says I must. If you would like to now call me a hypocrite feel free to do that also.

I tried to explain the way that I believe the best way I know how, as I said, is there really any difference between what I view as right and what I view as wrong, probably not. Will I change my views, again probably not. Chris

Edit: After thinking for just a minute. I agree breaking the law is breaking the law. But really, is catching 2 fish over my limit for a shore lunch really the same as stealing a car? I don't think so, is it the same as taking fatwood from a park, yes it is, exactly, which is what I was trying to explain. What is the difference, in my mind? If bushman would have taken that wood for his on use I would have had no problem with it. The pic of the funeral pyre stacked and burning is really what upset me. Chris
 
Last edited:
TF had a good point.

People confuse ethics with the law. What is legal may not be ethical (you shouldn't need examples of that), and what is ethical may not be legal.

Keep in mind the thread was about ethics not law.
 
August West said:
On the contrary I agree with everything you wrote, it is the honest, absolute truth. If I ever get caught I will pay what the court says I must. If you would like to now call me a hypocrite feel free to do that also.

I tried to explain the way that I believe the best way I know how, as I said, is there really any difference between what I view as right and what I view as wrong, probably not. Will I change my views, again probably not. Chris

Edit: After thinking for just a minute. I agree breaking the law is breaking the law. But really, is catching 2 fish over my limit for a shore lunch really the same as stealing a car? I don't think so, is it the same as taking fatwood from a park, yes it is, exactly, which is what I was trying to explain. What is the difference, in my mind? If bushman would have taken that wood for his on use I would have had no problem with it. The pic of the funeral pyre stacked and burning is really what upset me. Chris
Click to expand...

Don't take this the wrong way and I hope the moderators do not close the thread but you asked.
I would not use the word 'hypocrite' to describe your position but immature.
The real or pretend not understanding about the car analogy is another example of the immaturity/rationality. It wasn't about fishing over the limit being equal to stealing a car. It was about your 'waste' false dichotomy.

What would you say to a drunk driver (with your same rationale*) killed your wife in a car accident? Dude, that's OK I've done similar things - maybe on a smaller scale and in many other parts of my life but we have the same philosophy; in some ways we are the same.

*I wanted to drink ... I'll pay the penalty if caught.
(I wanted to eat the fish ... I'll pay the penalty if caught.)
 
Last edited:
dextersp1 said:
Don't take this the wrong way and I hope the moderators do not close the thread but you asked.
I would not use the word 'hypocrite' to describe your position but immature.
What would you say to a drunk driver (with your same rationale*) killed your wife in a car accident? Dude, that's OK I've done similar things - maybe on a smaller scale and in many other parts of my life but we have the same philosophy.

*I wanted to drink ... I'll pay the penalty if caught.
(I wanted to eat the fish ... I'll pay the penalty if caught.)
Click to expand...

I see no reason to close the thread, this is a good discussion not a shouting match.

I see your point.....but, I really think you are taking it to extremes.

A drunk driver killing my wife is not in the same league, not even the same sport is pilfering fatwood or catching 2 trout over your limit. I realize that you are just making examples but when they are so extreme they lose their merit.

I said in an earlier post that I didn't believe we have the right to pick and chose what laws we obey, after reading a few posts and thinking about it. That statement is not true and is, as you say, a bit immature. Of course we have the right to pick and chose, we do it every day and justify it every day. How we justify what we do may be where the real ethics come into play. Chris
 
I don't begrudge Augest his two fish. Its his bloody obsession with thin, cheap scandi blades that cheese me off :D




-No, that doesn't really bother me either :)

I think that ethics are as gray as recognizing a good idea. You do the best you can to live life full and limit the consequences of your activities. Every decision is a fork in the road of consequences and achievement of objectives. Sometimes the fork runs close and other times perpendicular. If you appreciate the wild areas you frequent you will do what you think is best to preserve the areas you enjoy. I think the best thing you can give nature is to teach and promote other people to love the resource as much as you do. When collectively a group values something then they work to preserve it. I've stated on similar threads as this one that over-protectiveness of resources that limit and constrain access produce an even greater thread than excess use. That greater thread is apathy and it soon leads to a scale of destruction that far exceeds trampling of boots.
 
August West said:
A drunk driver killing my wife is not in the same league, not even the same sport is pilfering fatwood or catching 2 trout over your limit. I realize that you are just making examples but when they are so extreme they lose their merit.
Click to expand...

It isn't about equating the two - it is about rationalizing actions - no matter what they are. It is about giving you and others another perspective on their rationalizations and actions.

Your rationalizations are the same as the drunk driver and those who steal. They are wrong and you are wrong.
 
dextersp1 said:
They are wrong and you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I admitted that when I wrote the post, it is refreshing that you agree with me. :D

I am too pigheaded, however, to equate it, or the rationalizing of it, to drunk driving and killing an innocent person. No matter how many fish I catch over my limit it will not cause the death of a person.

I agree KGD, overregulating in not the answer, nor using it as a personal store, but somewhere in the middle. Chris
 
Raisedby wolves said:
If August's wife DID have a liscense, but did not ACTUALLY CATCH THE FISH, and he caught 8 fish total, would you be OK with that?...Carl-
Click to expand...

For myself, according to my ethics, no. To me, that would be no different than buying my non-hunting wife and children hunting licenses and having them tag the deer I killed over my limit. Whether or not I think I will be caught, fined or actually cause real harm to the resource by my actions, to me it is not ethical. And I would not do it and then look for a way to justfy it.

And it goes beyond what is lawful too. Here, if a person hunted (sucessfully) every day during every season anf killed their lawful limit of deer every day, the pile would be over three hundred deer. Could I justify that by saying I was giving all that excess to the Hunters For The Hungry program? Yes. But to me it just would not be ethical even though it met with the law.
 
dextersp1 said:
I would not use the word 'hypocrite' to describe your position but immature.
The real or pretend not understanding about the car analogy is another example of the immaturity/rationality. It wasn't about fishing over the limit being equal to stealing a car. It was about your 'waste' false dichotomy.



*I wanted to drink ... I'll pay the penalty if caught.
(I wanted to eat the fish ... I'll pay the penalty if caught.)
Click to expand...

I really must be immature or irrational, because I still don't get it. :confused: What is false about eating fish or throwing them away? One is wasteful one is not. Stealing a car because the gasoline is being wasted? That doesn't even make sense. Chris
 
NOT how many animals are taken from the ecosystem in that instance, but not paying the tax (liscense) for taking them, because if she HAD taken 4, and he had taken 4, the same amount would be taken, the ONLY difference is the state did not take the $.
 
Codger_64 said:
And it goes beyond what is lawful too. Here, if a person hunted (sucessfully) every day during every season anf killed their lawful limit of deer every day, the pile would be over three hundred deer. Could I justify that by saying I was giving all that excess to the Hunters For The Hungry program? Yes. But to me it just would not be ethical even though it met with the law.
Click to expand...

Why not? State Game and Fish say that it is legal and the population will withstand it, poor people need the food, why is that unethical?

Again, crime is not crime, there have to be different levels, do 2 trout equal 1 deer?

What about the scenario that raised by wolves stated and you accidentally killed an extra duck, is that an absolute also? Chris
 
August West said:
I admitted that when I wrote the post, it is refreshing that you agree with me. :D

I am too pigheaded, however, to equate it, or the rationalizing of it, to drunk driving and killing an innocent person. No matter how many fish I catch over my limit it will not cause the death of a person.

I agree KGD, overregulating in not the answer, nor using it as a personal store, but somewhere in the middle. Chris
Click to expand...

???? "No matter how many fish I catch over my limit it will not cause the death of a person." ????
 
dextersp1 said:
???? "No matter how many fish I catch over my limit it will not cause the death of a person." ????
Click to expand...

I think we are going to have to call it quits, seems we have reached an impasse. I don't understand the points you are trying to make and you don't understand mine. Chris
 
August West said:
I really must be immature or irrational, because I still don't get it. :confused: What is false about eating fish or throwing them away? One is wasteful one is not. Stealing a car because the gasoline is being wasted? That doesn't even make sense. Chris
Click to expand...

I think his point might be that rationalizing it, doesn't make it right. The most heinous of crimes are rationalized- not saying your two fish over-limit is a heinous crime, just that when it comes to crime many things are constants

accidently killing a duck is not the same as taking two extra ducks intentionally (not matter your rationale for doing so)
 
August West said:
I think we are going to have to call it quits, seems we have reached an impasse. I don't understand the points you are trying to make and you don't understand mine. Chris
Click to expand...

Your posts were and example for other to learn from about rationalization and justification for actions.

Don't take this the wrong way but it wasn't about understanding you points. It had nothing to do with the fish nor how many you were over the limit. It was about your thought process.

It was about the others that might have saw themselves in you, reflected upon it and determined they didn't want to behave like you.
 
mtwarden said:
I think his point might be that rationalizing it, doesn't make it right. The most heinous of crimes are rationalized- not saying your two fish over-limit is a heinous crime, just that when it comes to crime many things are constants
Click to expand...

If that's the case then it's BS. Everyone rationalizes their actions everyday, whether it is speeding, or telling your boss a little white lie about why you are coming back late from lunch, so I guess we are all the same as murderous drunk drivers.

mtwarden said:
accidently killing a duck is not the same as taking two extra ducks intentionally (not matter your rationale for doing so)
Click to expand...

Agreed, the problem is proving to the Warden it was an accident, your still going to pay the fine. Best not take risky shots. Chris
 
"A drunk driver killing my wife is not in the same league, not even the same sport..."

Sorry for the interjection but that is the funniest thing I've read all day.

As you were
 
dextersp1 said:
It was about the others that might have saw themselves in you, reflected upon it and determined they didn't want to behave like you.
Click to expand...

I am sure that a lot of people have spent 10 minutes with me and decided they didn't want to behave like me, much less wade though this convoluted mess we have written. Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top