From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Moral philos.  
Date & Time: 05/11/91 01:08:14
Message Number 16720

If you do something which does not harm anyone directly and harms others
only indirectly, you are not 'doing unto' others what you would not have
them done unto you.
 
That means:
 
If you do something which harms others only indirectly, you are not
doing unto others what you would not have them do unto you. The part
you are not interpreting correctly is the clause 'you are not doing unto
others...' What I am saying is this: If you do that which harms others
only indirectly, you are not doing anything UNTO OTHERS; you are doing
something which is not directed at other people but which involves them
only incidentally. You are not 'doing unto others what you would not hav
them do unto you'; you are not violating the Golden Rule. If you re-read
the sentence again, you will see that in interpreting it as you are you
are losing the negation in the last clause.
 
>Do you think you can express a complete set of ethics in English?
 
That's an issue that has nothing to do with what I was discussing, and
frankly I'm not that interested in getting into a discussion on
semantics and linguistics. Sufice it to say that I don't think there's
anything terribly mysterious about ethics, or even anything intrinsic-
ally different from any other complex belief sets. I certainly don't see
any reason why a complete set of ethics can't be stated in any
particular language you care to name.