In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > >> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible
> for
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument.
> Many
> > > >> > of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal
> > > >> > elsewhere
> > > >> > and therefore moral.
> > > >>
> > > >> Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or
> encourage a
> > > >> person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as
> well.
> > > >
> > > > Really. If I encourage someone to return money that has been recovered
> > > > and there is a reward then, I am morally and obviously legally
> entitled
> > > > to part of that reward?
> > >
> > > Nobody is entitled to a reward for returning lost money, you
> opportunist.
> >
> > I am an 'accomplice". If the accomplice to a crime is entitled to the
> > punishment then, the accomplice to a reward is entitled to the reward.
>
> Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
> evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
> money and decline the reward.

How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
Accepting a reward is not illegal.

> > > > Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they die as
> a
> > > > result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in that
> death?
> > >
> > > Encouraging responsible pot use to a pot user probably *adds* years to
> their
> > > life.
> >
> > Irrelevant. It is the encouragement of illegal activities.
>
> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.

Nice avoidance. When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
you make it an issue.

> > It is the
> > encouragement for trafficking and possession. It is aiding and abetting
> > criminal activity. It is acting with knowledge before and after the fact
> > -- it is being an accessory. Please turn yourself in to the nearest
> > authorities.
>
> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course of
> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> responsibly.

Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still aiding
someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
to the authorities.

> > > > Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples of where
> > > > you are mistaken.
> > >
> > > You haven't found a single instance where I have been mistaken yet, but
> you
> > > will eventually if you keep trying long enough. You will pronounce
> yourself
> > > victorious at that point in time no doubt.
> >
> > Single? I found many. Failing to 'snitch' or 'rat' in any circumstance
> > of illegal activity (such as the possession of marijuana -- a crime) is
> > protecting someone from the outcome of criminal activities.
>
> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
> immoral OR a crime.

How did you decide that it was moral?

> > > >> You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on
> these
> > > >> subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.
> > > >
> > > > It's been suggested that you were a former police officer. I suspect
> any
> > > > former police officer could recite the criminal code far better than I
> > > > ever could. That a policy academy though would be any demonstration of
> > > > the ability to clearly argue a position IS another matter.
> > > >
> > > > So, in what jurisdiction are you claiming an expertise?
> > > >
> > > > As I have been stating all along, Dutch, it is a principle that is
> > > > inconsistently applied. Further, it is not universal or absolute.
> > >
> > > Complicity is a natural principle that is found in logic, morality, law,
> in
> > > some form in most every discipline. That it may be unevenly applied in
> laws
> > > or elsewhere should come as no surprise, human social constructs are
> > > imperfect.
> >
> > You are inconsistent?
>
> Of course.

But the vegan must be consistent. You have the freedom as a human to be
inconsistent, the vegan on the other hand must not be. I think the term
hypocrite is appropriate here -- do as I say, not as I do.

> > You claim social constructs are imperfect -- logic
> > is a human construct and morality is a human construct.