In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and location) or
> >> > absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an accomplice
> >> > or accessory.
> >>
> >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and
> >> the
> >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> >> evaluation.
> >
> > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
>
> One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young people to a
> life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.

My question was, what is different about the actions?

> Two actions may be identical in physical form

Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.

> but completely dissimiliar
> when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know this or
> else you are sociopathic.

The circumstances are the the same. The reasoning or thinking is what is
being assessed and having label of morality applied.

What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular and
socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If being
an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.

I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in line
is a breeze.