A question of ethics.

[litrelord]

Thinking more like the creatures we are, rather than the 'Perfectly Ethical' machines we're not, can seriously facilitate seemingly difficult decision making in my opinion.

Whilst I’m sure you’re not saying we should start peeing up lampposts or living in trees I think there is a large difference between us and (non-human) animals which is due largely to our thought processes. I for one wouldn’t want to live in a savage world where everyone is out for themselves with no thought for anyone else (I’ll ignore the fact that some may say that’s where we are anyway).

Other animals form partnerships within their groups for mating and any attempt by another male/female to interject is often met with aggression by the mate/whole group.

As humans I feel the way we’ve evolved has let us see consequences more fully. Not just spreading our DNA but trying to improve the survival of that DNA by helping each other to become more co-operative.

Well that, read back, sounded like a pretentious load of twaddle so for that I apologise.

Nick

 

[Felix Atagong]

The vote needs one category more:
Yes (it is unethical) but it is also FUN to do it!

 

[PaddyD]

The dilemma is not whether or not it is ethical, but whether you're more likely to get laid or laid out.

 

[LySeRGinator]

I agree in large with your sentiments lord, however I believe these days people seem to forget they have a complex biochemical system underpinning absolutely everything they do... people can experience matters of conscience, or ethics, and be left almost in limbo as to first why they are thinking such things as ripping off an engaged lady, and secondly what they could possibly do to resolve it lol.

Stepping back, realising the context, remembering our biology and smiling about it can help in many, many ways is my point revised

 

[Greg Truby]

All, in all, it's unethical.

If'n yer steppin' twixt two that are truly in love then it's very unethical an' yer deserving to get a thrashin' if'n ya get it. But even if the chap is a drunken, abusive skunk and you are truly in love with her, then it's still wrong to agressively court her in my book. I'd say better to simply tell 'er that if'n she decides to break it off with the skunk, here's your number. Like Smitty said, ya don't go after another fella's gal. If, of her own volition, she ends the engagement prior to callin' yer number, then it ain't poachin'. If she calls yer number whilst still engaged jus' hang up the phone and save yerself a barrelful o' grief.

LySeRGinator's bit about biology is naught but a bunch of hooey to me (in this context). I very much recognize that we are biological systems and that to pretend that there are not "urges" is simply false. There are "urges". But we're talkin' ethics here and the moral value of betrothal and by extension promises. A betrothal is not marriage. But it is a promise. Urges or not, to woo or court someone who is engaged is disrespectful to that promise.

Leastwise, that's how I call it. Great question Oorang.

 

[Oaktree]

I agree with what Greg said, though I had to translate from Southern to Chicagoan (usually, find and replace TH with D works pretty well) to understand exactly what it was.

 

[Greg Truby]

Oaktree, actually I occasionally lapse into prose reminiscent of Mark Twain deliberately and for a couple of reasons. (a) Given his ranch management pedigree, it facilitates Smitty’s rapid comprehension; and (b) it should keep Erik busy looking things up in his dictionary for while and give the rest of us a chance to answer a thread. (Now I just need to figure out how to distract Norie…)

 

[Oaktree]

(Now I just need to figure out how to distract Norie…)

We could start a thread asking which part of Peru he's from.

 

[Smitty]

facilitates Smitty’s rapid comprehension

And that's hard to do!

Smitty

 

[Greg Truby]

Well, Smitty, it ain't so hard when this sits on my shelf between my books on Access & Excel. I just take it down and thumb through a couple o' pages and get in the proper frame of mind...:wink: