The Publishing of Cave Locations....

[Teresa]

Kudos to George Dasher. I rarely say --me, too-- but he said just about what I think.

To the person who said we need more ethics-- that's precisely the problem. There are about as many sets of ethics (good, bad, indifferent, effective, ineffectual, silly, insane, etc.) as there are people. Mostly, people can justify their stance and their response to land management issues like cave locations on some basis, and if you look at it from their perspective, it looks right.

I'm all for fewer ethics, more respect for individuals (present and future) and the land (reaonably used or protected.) Have fun, but save something for the next guy, like it was saved for you.

Over and out.

[tncaver]

Teresa wrote:
"I'm all for fewer ethics, more respect for individuals (present and future) and the land (reaonably used or protected.)"

Ethics IS having respect for individuals, property and the rights of others.
Ethics covers non legal issues of right and wrong. When people do unethical
things they usually know they are doing what is not right. Those people
justify their actions by claiming they are not breaking the law.
So I'm for ethics.
And although this may sound odd to you, I think you and I ARE for the
same principals in general.

[Teresa]

And although this may sound odd to you, I think you and I ARE for the
same principals in general.

Not odd at all. We do hold similar views on conservation, cave management, personal responsibility,etc. Compare us to urban skateboarding preteens with Ipods, and we're almost family, though I've never met you.

Here is the Wiki ethics definition:
"Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠθική [φιλοσοφία] "moral philosophy", from the adjective of ἤθος ēthos "custom, habit"), a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility."

My point was: someone entirely ruled by the profit motive has a consistent set of ethics (how they approach a problem using their values and customs) but that set may be diametrically opposed to someone motivated by respect for the law, or seeking what they perceive is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Members of PETA and Safari Club International have very different sets of ethics, but they both do subscribe to some code of action within their group based on their beliefs.

If there were fewer groups of ethics, more people would agree on reasonable action under the same circumstances. In order to get more people to agree, the common ethical stance would have to be more moderate, reasonable and inclusive. And that is what I think would be a good thing.

I think it's funny how people evolve. I started out really certain about everything, and after knocking around in the world, I'm more moderate and willing to listen and try almost anything. OTOH, I know plenty of people who went the other direction.
best
Teresa

[tncaver]

I think perhaps you have a good point. Fewer ethics, laws and rules
might benefit us all.