The billy goat and the ethical conundrum - part 2

My recent post ‘The billy goat and the ethical conundrum’ [1] snagged the interest of Farmdoc’s Blog readers, several of whom have asked me what’s happened since then. So here’s Part 2:

On 24 March, over dinner (fish and chips, FYI), Sharon and I decided to speak further with Mr Smith (still not his real name) by phone. As a day after her phone call with him, Sharon was still very upset by his verbal attack, we agreed I’d phone him. I did, in Sharon’s presence. Calmly and courteously but firmly, I reiterated to him our clear recall of the agreement, i.e. payment via one nanny kid of the Smiths’ choosing. After a long silence, Mr Smith said: ‘I’m speechless’. Then he hung up on me. The next day (25 March) Sharon received this email [2]. (She forwarded it to me on 27 March.) We decided the appropriate response would be for her to email him back, acknowledging his email and reiterating our eagerness to abide by our side of the deal as we recalled it, i.e. the Smiths to choose the best nanny kid in the mob. Sharon sent a short email along these lines over a week ago. There’s been no response from the Smiths. I intuit they won’t communicate further. Time will tell. But if anything further does happen, I’ll post it on Farmdoc’s Blog.

P.S. I’m considering sending this conundrum to the NYT Ethicist Randy Cohen [3, 4], seeking his response. Stay tuned.

The billy goat and the ethical conundrum

Conundrum. My dictionary’s definition is ‘a difficult problem’. I love this word. It’s onomatopoeic – redolent of hmmmm. Today I write of my latest ethical conundrum: My sharefarmer Sharon and I needed a billy goat to mate our nannies with last May. Would we buy or hire? Finally we agreed on an arrangement with a local couple she knew – the Smiths (not their real name) – who live 5km away. The Smiths would loan us a billy for six weeks (i.e. two goat menstrual cycles) in return for a female kid – of the Smiths’ choosing – from his progeny. There was no paperwork – Sharon and the Smiths were socially acquainted, and we all lived in the same locality. It was very cordial. Last 21 May we collected the billy – Flynn, (pictured) à la ‘in like Flynn’ – and straight away put him with 29 nannies. On 5 July we returned him. Both days we reiterated the deal with Mrs Smith. Flynn had worked well: 20 sons and 14 daughters. Next Sunday Sharon and I’ll wean these kids. So last Tuesday Sharon phoned the Smiths to fix a time for them to choose and take a nanny kid. Mr Smith retorted that the payment was one kid to them for each 10 kids born. He’d unilaterally changed the deal. He was aggressive and rude to Sharon. She was very upset. So, folks, that’s the conundrum. What should we do? Agree to the revised deal? Stick to the original deal? Compromise? What do you think? Hmmmm.