> 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

You're getting closer here, but I think "too ethical" is still the wrong way to go. For you to describe someone as "too ethical" implies that they have a high level of ethics according to your value system. If they believe that something is ethical, but you disagree, they're not too ethical, from your point of view--they just have a different system of ethics. Basically, for any one individual to desrcibe another as "too ethical" makes no sense. Perhaps "differently ethiced" would be a better term. (OK, that last part was tongue-in-cheek, but I am serious about the rest.)

Don "Of course, this discussion is rapidly heading towards the realm of a debate about the existence of absolute morality, which is one that I definitely do not wish to get into right now" Monkey