Originally posted by Kirkll:
Ethic's is something that is detrmined by the majority, not the individual Jason.
Not picking an arguement - but I couldn't disagree with that statement more vehemently. It takes more than a consensus to make an action "right" or "wrong".
As childish as it sounds: its the same thing our mothers tried to teach us when they said: "If your friends all decided to jump off a bridge, would you do it too?"
Ethics are MOST useful when they guide you AWAY from doing what the majority would have you think is acceptable, when you in fact know it to be wrong, and vice-versa.
Its what makes a guy like Paul Brunner pass up a 12 yard shot, but take a 40 yard shot...
There are too many factors involved to arbitrarily impose a "limit" on distance that applies to everyone.
My statement about 100 yards was intentionally exaggerated to make that point. Its NOT the distance alone that makes a shot a good choice or a bad choice - its a whole array of factors - and every one of them has to be taken into consideration on every shot BY THE PERSON TAKING THE SHOT. We don't hunt by committee.
Especially when it comes to hunting, I think that "ethics" are a VERY - and I would argue,
an EXCLUSIVELY - personal issue. The individual is the only one who will ever be qualified to accurately evaluate the "ethics" of his/her choices.