From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Moral philos.  
Date & Time: 05/12/91 21:50:06
Message Number 16771

T> If you do that which harms others only indirectly, you are not doing
T> anything UNTO OTHERS; you are doing something which is not directed 
T> at other people, but which involves them only incidentally.
    
   And you later say that you're not interested in getting into a d
discussion on "semantics and linguistics"?  I was considering "unto"
as a synonym of "to." 
       
   (By the way, if you must refer to the rules by metals: the Buddhist
rule, "Do not do...what you would not have them..." is called the Silver
Rule.  The Golden Rule drops the "nots" -- and is therefore quite 
different.)
    
   I see your point, though, how "unto" implies not doing anything
which directly hurts others, but allows for the possibility of doing
things which indirectly hurt others. 
     
   To change the topic, no, I DON'T believe all of ethics could be
stated completely.  There's too much situational ethics that's necessary
in the world to define ethics.  If you accept the commandment: "Thou
shalt not murder," I'd ask you to define murder.  Is killing in self-
defense murder?  What about animals?  And how does one define self-
defense?  The circle goes on.
                        //Dragonfly//