I have not used the 'do unto others ...' rule anywhere in my argument because I don't agree with it. I might like a good slap on the bollocks everytime I see my friend, my friend may not like me to do that in return. So it should be stated more like 'Within a broader moral and legal framework, and taking into account available resources and level of responsibility, and the wishes of all involved and society as a whole, where relevant, do unto others as they would have you do unto them'.

Look at how unruly that simple rule becomes as soon it is examined. So now we have all these conditions and caveats, and there's probably more I just came up with those stream-of-consciousness stylee, and they all need weighted values applied to them considering both the present and all possible futures. Even if we could agree on values the calculations would be vast and far beyond the brain's capacity to do 'on the fly', and suddenly every action and inaction becomes a moral one. This is the nightmare you end up in when you start with a quite appealing, simple looking, utilitarian-esque ethical principle.

I didn't use that argument, nor would I for those reasons (and some other more technical reasons too).

My argument is more like if you think something is wrong don't do it, don't associate with people who do it and don't assist anyone to do it. Which is quite different.


Peace,

kowalski