In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Yes. A logical argument based on popularity.
>
> It's not based on popularity, it's based on the power of the concept, which
> in turn makes it popular.

It doesn't take much research for anyone who is not experiencing
confirmation bias to find a variety of thinking on the problems and
consequences of the moral code or principle of the Golden Rule.

What I am prepared to agree with you on is:
1) The code is common and popular to North America and Christianity
2) The code does seem to have variations in other nations and within
other religions

> > This is generally
> > considered a logical fallacy.
>
> It's not argumentum ad populum, you don't know what you're talking about.

It meets the requirements of an argument from popularity.

> > How have you translated something that is effectively "do unto
> > others..." into one must not give or accept a reward?
>
> I would return someone's wallet because I would hope they would do the same
> for me, not because I expect to be paid.

How is the expectation of compensation, an honorarium or reward contrary
to the notion of "do unto others..."?

> > Now, if the golden rule applies, when Rick refers to me as pansy boy,
> > application of this principle would mean it is he who wishes to be
> > treated this way and called pansy boy -- do unto others.
>
> Not an unreasonable conclusion, although he probably would prefer you come
> up with your own epithets.

It's the golden rule operationalized.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Now that we have that in print,
>
> Good, I'm pleased you acknowledge that you keep doing it.
>
> > please establish how you have determined
> > that it would be wrong to accept the reward or to give it in the
> > situation.
>
> See above.
>
> > I know the golden rule in principle. I know that many follow it. I am
> > curious how you have determined that this principle is moral though.
>
> Morality, as I said before, hinges on the idea of harm, avoiding and
> preventing it.

That is your worldview. Please stop assuming that the rest of us must
act as you. Contrary to the common philosophy that you inconsistently
perpetuate here, I take a position of 'redemption philosophy'. As such,
not all harm needs to be removed or minimized. Please don't confuse me
with others are vulnerable and afraid and use legal and moral codes to
feel safety and sanctuary in the world.

> Since most of us have an aversion to being harmed, we
> naturally wish that others do not harm us. If we all refrain from causing
> harm to one-another, that will best minimize the chance of each of us
> suffering harm. Therefore the golden rule makes perfect sense. It's the
> perfect moral rule.

That is easily disputed in psychology with the 'death instinct'. It is
practicallly demonstrated as false by the common actions of humans.
Humans are equally drawn to harmfree and harmful activities. It's only a
question of whether an individual is open enough to acknowledge and see
those things.

> > > >> > > > 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.
> >
> > Not at all and now that we have this in print.
>
> Right, we do, proof positive that you are moving the goalposts to and from
> between morality and legality. Why?

Not at all. I've been asking you to clarify what falls to legality and
what falls to morality. You've indicated that the moral code being
operationailzed is the golden rule. Yet, you continue to avoid stating
how any of these issues is contrary to the notion of "do unto others".

> > Please explain for us,
> > how you have determined the difference between morality and legality.
>
> Laws are written in law books.

And where is morality written? Where is the golden rule, for example,
written?

> > You've state the golden rule as logic, I state is merely common.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > >> > 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.
> >
> > THANK YOU! I know.
>
> Black and white thinking is not good, you should not be proud of it.
>
> > I applied current morality and current law to the
> > situation and you were able to see it as black and white. Go figure.
> > When I do it, you can easily see it, when you do it you deny it. What's
> > that about?
>
> It's just more of your utterly shallow thinking. Once I *advise* someone to
> refrain from pot, that is my primary moral, and sensible position. If I say
> *if* you choose to smoke it, do so responsibly, I am NOT advising them to
> smoke it or condoning it, I have stipulated that they already made that
> decision on their own, contrary to my advice.

Yes, you are advocating when you take that stance. By comparison, if I
deem it not sensible for 12 year olds to be having sex, but then state
that they should do it responsibly, it would seem that I am advocating
for them to behave in a certain way.

> > > >> > > > 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.
> >
> > Really. What in the golden rule of "do unto others..." refers to
> > complicity or being an accomplice. As I've stated, you have confused
> > legality and morality.
>
> LOL!!! That's rich Ron.

Don't back off now, Dutch. You've stated the moral principle as the
golden rule. What in the principle refers to complicity or being an
accomplice?

> -snip-
>
> The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.

The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
remarks.