>
> No, you're not being dumb. The word "too" does imply a bad thing... which is moronic, since it's not possible to be TOO ethical. It's like saying that somebody is "overly" ethical. If one is ethical, then by definition that is a good thing, as ethics are inherently "good." If somebody could possibly come up with a situation where being "too ethical" is a bad thing, I'd like to hear it.
>
> Stephen

www.m-w.com returns "ethic" if I look up "ethics":

1: plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values
b : a theory or system of moral values
c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
d : a guiding philosophy

Regarding "ethical":

1 : of or relating to ethics
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3 : conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct
4 of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescription

I'm not sure about the inherent "good" quality of ethics. I'm pretty sure an ethic which says it's OK to kill someone for fun can be labeled "bad".

Obviously, one cannot be "too ethical" using meanings 2 or 3. Which is what you said.
What I've so far read into the original statement of being "too ethical" (including the context in which the statement was made), is that someone is taking the must-not-harm-animals-cause-we-are-also-animals-ourselves-and-we-don't-like-to-be-harmed-by-other-animals ethics too far - by the standards set by another (my) ethic. This could be done in many ways, which I'm sure you are aware of (if not, there was a thread a while ago ... and another a longer while ago ...).

julian