"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?

By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
equivalents in many cultures.

> Accepting a reward is not illegal.

I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality again,
the very mistake you keep accusing me of.

>> > > > 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.

Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the goalposts?

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

Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.

Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked for
a legal opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------
You:

> My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> professional who informed you of this?

Me:

Study this...

The Law of Complicity
This section examines the law of complicity. This deals with the liability
of individuals who assist or encourage others to commit an offence.

http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html

------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
thinking seems quite confused.

>
>> > 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.

Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
self-professed free-thinker.


>> > > > 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?

A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.

>> > > >> 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.

No, the vegan does not need to be consistent, the vegan ought to recognize
and acknowledge his/her inconsistency where it is clearly pointed out to
him/her, as any rational person should.

The reality is, vegans either cannot or will not do this, which is what
makes it so much fun debating with them. You have your own personal brand of
bone-headed silliness that makes you entertaining.

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