Originally Posted by Socratic Monologue
A useful distinction. I'd like to add one more consideration, though:
3) Ownership of the offspring of smuggled frogs is itself morally wrong, regardless of future effects even if those effects are positive, because an egregious moral violation in the past makes this act in the present possible.
This is at least part of the presumptive reasoning behind, for example, museums refusing donations from the Sackler family.
Ah but what does it mean when you say "moral". A dictionary
would define it as concerning right and wrong behavior. Doesn't this relate back to one of the two issues?
A facebook group linked an article (one I have been searching for since first reading the blue galacs thread but now can't find... facebook is worthless for this) that Brazil is thinking of loosening their restrictions on animal exports. So let me pose a hypothetical. Assume for a moment that next week Brazil does this and now a certain number of frogs can be exported each year into the hobby. Assume that blue galacs are one of these frogs legally exported. In this hypothetical, are the existing smuggled frogs/progeny morally wrong to own? What if they breed with legally exported frogs, would those progeny be morally wrong to own? What if 50 years from now those lines of frogs are hopelessly intermingled, would it be wrong to own a blue galac at that point? The answers to these questions most likely vary wildly with the person and their interpretation of the value of laws.