imagine this scenario : you have some very valuable( or perhaps, extinct in the wild already) fish at home, fish that some common folks would just dream of keeping, or for that matter, dream of seeing one alive. you know the fish arent doing so well, but you have to go to work/school
the following are two viewpoints that i was told:
1. work is work. play is play. Fish keeping is just a hobby. I can't get off work to save some precious life.
2. saving precious life is very important. especially when that one individual life can affect the continuation of that specie. I know i can't get off work/school right now, but at least, as responsible as i could, i appointed someone who could rescue/safe (or at least attempt to) the fish
Who is a more responsible fish keeper ? ( 1 or 2? ) Is it morally right to just let a valuable life perish in vain ? Isn't it better to at least attempt a rescue? please explain
I personally stand on the side of number 2. but i would love to hear from all of you guys' opinion
the following are two viewpoints that i was told:
1. work is work. play is play. Fish keeping is just a hobby. I can't get off work to save some precious life.
2. saving precious life is very important. especially when that one individual life can affect the continuation of that specie. I know i can't get off work/school right now, but at least, as responsible as i could, i appointed someone who could rescue/safe (or at least attempt to) the fish
Who is a more responsible fish keeper ? ( 1 or 2? ) Is it morally right to just let a valuable life perish in vain ? Isn't it better to at least attempt a rescue? please explain
I personally stand on the side of number 2. but i would love to hear from all of you guys' opinion