Originally Posted by minorhero
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?
No, it does not. As to your 'issue #1': An act can be immoral without being illegal (this should be obvious without an example). As to your 'issue #2': an act can be immoral regardless of whether it, intentionally or otherwise, leads to future benefits (e.g. torturing prisoners).
'Moral' is a very, very small subset of right and wrong behaviors. It is wrong to make a cappuccino using espresso and orange juice, but it isn't morally wrong. It is right to push the big red button if the goal is to launch the nukes, but it isn't morally right to push the big red button.
Originally Posted by minorhero
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.
It isn't clear what your point is here. The last sentence seems to imply that the moral questions are irrelevant, or simply subjective, based on the suggestion that a clear moral answer to a borderline hypothetical case isn't agreed upon.
There are all sorts of ways to figure this one out. Consider R vanzolinii
-- all can be assumed to be of smuggled origin except the UE line (this isn't hypothetical, this is true). Are all vanzolinii equally ethically possessable? I'd say no, for obvious reasons. What if they are crossed (I know of at least one breeder who offers such frogs). Harder to make a judgment on, but different people can give differing but reasoned considerations
in favor of one judgment or another. There doesn't have to be one answer for there to be good answers; there doesn't have to be one right answer for us to be able to say that some answers are wrong.
Another: I offer to sell you three diamonds as a group, but you and I both know one of them is stolen property. What say you to the sale?
Another: I offer you a great price on my collection of DVDs as one lot, but you and I both know that one of them contains material that is the most illegal video material there is (I ain't gonna name it here). What say you?
Anyone can produce different cases -- thought experiments -- that appeal to different intuitions, and talking through them enables us to figure out what we think, morally speaking.