To think only a monster would claim a reward for returning a missing pet

[OptimismvsRealism]

Surely any decent human would refuse unless absolutely desperate for food or something

I'm so glad you said this. The stealth boast 'woe is me' crap was grating.

The OP didn't say 'would you only ever look for/return a pet of you were getting paid'. The OP made a rather wild judgement about anyone that might accept a reward.

I think the offerer should offer but I think you're vile if you accept it. Would you feel differently if you knew who's pet it was? I.e if it was a disabled person with some vulnerabilities and a small few hundred quid of savings would you still take it?

😂 How does that make you a monster or a freak?! Literally no one is judging you for not accepting a reward. We are just saying that accepting a reward doesn't automatically make someone a monster.

Some of us are givers not takers.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I bow down to thee, o morally superior one 🤣

Okay, here's a different take. A single mother, living on the breadline, finds a tabby cat and returns it to an incredibly wealthy family who insist on offering her £100 because they are so very
grateful. They are very insistent that she takes it. Is she a monster for accepting it?

I reckon you're proper grabby in all areas of life from this response, so yes the pp has a right to feel morally superior.

Yes she is, it's their pet not an opportunity for her to change her circumstances. You never answered my question.

If they're insistent that they'd like you to take the reward, you could always accord them a little respect by accepting the gift they want to give you, in recognition of what you've done for them, rather than assuming you know better than them what they should do with their own money.

No, I would not take money from someone vulnerable. But I don't think this thread is full of people that would either. It's just that the OP made a wild claim about what constitutes a monster which seems ridiculous to me.

Also, in my pretend example, the single mother isn't really changing her circumstances is she? She's accepting a gift from a grateful family who want to express their gratitude.

God your moral compass must be non existent if that's how you think. Being a trained vet and it being your career is very different to finding a missing pet and taking someone's money they offered I desperation. They are cunts, absolutely.

This thread is a bit mad. It conjures up images of people banging on doors shouting "PAY UP, I'VE GOT FIDO" 😂

I've found so far three dogs, and one of them 3 times. As you say it's a pain, catch it, keep it, find owner, go to vet miles away for checking chip etc.
I dont currently need a reward except for the three time escapee if he does it again.
But if I'm offered I'd like to donate to the charity of my choice not just any animal charity. Or maybe buy something for my pets? I've never been offered though.

I have two dogs therefore I have 2 leads, it's a bloody pain trying to find a length of rope or something for stray dog. And then keep stray and mine apart in case of reductions.

I'm also a phone finder, I've found 4 in the last couple of years. Usually get a box of chocs which is nice.

The single mother needs more help than £100 from a wealthy family for finding their pet. It would be a great opportunity to show an example to her children of why no matter how much you could do with it, taking money in the wrong circumstances is immoral. I'm sure here's other ways she will get money and cope. Also I think a lot of people on this thread are saying they would take it off of someone vulnerable just because its offered.

🤣 Alright then. The alternative to swanning around declaring your distress at the moral inadequacy of your fellow humans (compared to your own impeccable self-sacrificing humility) is being "proper grabby". I'd rather be grabby, TBH.

My moral compass is fine, thanks.

I don't see how you're drawing a distinction between "profit from returning someone's pet they love so much" and "profit from treating someone's pet they love so much".

A reward was offered, either beforehand or when the animal was returned, for finding and returning the animal. A person found and returned the animal. Accepting the reward is perfectly reasonable. It's bizarre to say that accepting a voluntarily-offered reward makes someone a cunt.

This is why I love MN — the level of discourse, the sophistication of debate… I concede in the face of such logic and eloquence.

I'd probably donate to an animal charity. Maybe.

I would absolutely accept a reward if one was offered. Money is tight and it would come in very useful. If they didn't want to pay it, they shouldn't offer it.

If there was no reward, of course I would still return the pet. I wouldn't be returning the pet in order to receive the reward - but I would be stupid not to take it if it was offered.

The irony of you questioning someone's moral compass and then using a slur against them that is offensive to people with a learning disability.

It’s taking a reward offered, not holding a pet to ransom fgs. If I lose a pet and offer a reward, I honour my promise to pay it.

It does but someone always pops in reminding us that all insults are ableist.