Originally Posted by Tijl
[...] I recently talked to Brazilian Herpetologist and they told me they are (illegaly) catching wild frogs to save them from certain exctiction. There are no laws in habitat destruction, so the people act themselves to save since they are not legaly allow to keep them. Is this wrong or just? [...]
The above example is very easy for me to reconcile.
It seems to me a clear case of ethics taking precedence over legality, made especially easy because these animals are being saved by trained scientists who presumably know what they're doing in managing a population of rescued frogs.
In this case it's either risk a species over bureaucracy while their habitat literally burns, or act for a greater good.
This is not to say that laws are meaningless bureaucracy, but if said laws don't actually protect the species, scientists have an ethical obligation to act, in my opinion.