4 ms·
The situation implies that the person selling the rabbits as pets would attempt to rehome them or care for them as pets. There's a difference between being tec
by dnadler 4y ago
The situation implies that the person selling the rabbits as pets would attempt to rehome them or care for them as pets.
There's a difference between being technically correct, and being moral. While the language used is technically correct for the situation, omitting the information about where the rabbits end up is immoral.
Clearly OP understands that if the whole truth was told, they wouldn't be getting a free source of rabbit meat...
- samatman 4y agoIs it dishonest to buy a rabbit and not mention that you're planning to eat/breed/keep it as a pet? No of course not, it's none of the seller's business. If they say "hey we're vegan please don't eat our rabbits" that's a different matter, it would be at the very least polite to respect those wishes. Why on Earth would returning a rabbit to a farm where they eat them be any different? In this case the possibility is perfectly clear.
- dnadler 4y agoI think the bit about it being a "farm where they eat them" is the key point. If the person returning it knows that, then sure. The OP implied pretty heavily that they don't know the ultimate fate of the rabbits. As far as these people know its "A farm where they sell breed and sell rabbits as pets", not a farm that raises them for meat.
- inglor_cz 4y ago"it's none of the seller's business" In this case, the parties are close relatives, so I would argue that their threshold of duty to disclose such facts is somewhat higher than in case of complete strangers.
- spelunker 4y agoI would hardly call it immoral. If the owners are curious about the ultimate fate of the rabbit, they could simply ask before returning.
- leaflets2 4y agoI think it doesn't occur to them that the rabbit's new home is in the oven. They wouldn't think about asking