From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Moral philos.  
Date & Time: 05/09/91 11:15:29
Message Number 16669

T> [Moral preaching]
   
   Well, let's take this one step at a time.  I never stated that the
Wiccan "As it harms none, do as thou wilt" and the Buddhist "Do not do
unto others what you would not have them do unto you" were the same. I
said they were "approximately the same..., one stated positively, one
stated negatively." 
    
   Your argument seemed to shove together the Buddhist position with
the Jewish one: the Jewish rule makes NO mention of prohibiting 
anything.  Only the Buddhist one does.
    
   Even still, your argument seems to be: The difference between the
Wiccan rule and the Buddhist rule is that of indirect versus direct 
harm.  The Buddhist rule only prohibits direct harm to others; the 
Wiccan rule prohibits any action that can, directly or indirectly, harm
another.  Sounds like a good summary?
    
   You yourself destroy that argument.  "If you do something which 
doesn't involve others directly and hurts others only incidentally,
you are not 'doing onto' others what you wouldn't have done unto you."
In other words, indirect harm is also part of the Buddhist rule.
     
   (The difference, as I see it, is that the Wiccan rule promotes 
activity, and supports the human will.  The Buddhist rule promotes
passivity, and makes no mention of the will.)
     
   I see the Jewish rule as the superior one.  If you saw a child 
about to drown, only the Jewish rule would ask you do save the child.
Inaction could be justified in Wicca: the child is harming herself,
you are not harming the child.  The Buddhist rule is worse: you are
not doing anything to worsen the child's problem.  
    
                           //Dragonfly//