"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote

and (2) A

has no right to abet B's crime by not ratting him out.

That's a wrong interpertation of legal, and moral, duty.

It would be helpful, if you are going to assert that an intepretation is
"wrong," to explain why it is wrong and give what you think is the right
one. And then defend it.

Dutch wrote:

George Dance wrote:

Does A have a right to allow B to have a drink, and then leave,
undisturbed?

The question is nonsensical. "Does A have a right to allow B to have a
drink..." implies that some moral or legal imperative exists which
compels
citizens to enforce every public ordinance. Must I impose a citizen's
arrest
on every jaywalker I encounter? No such imperative exists, my legal
obligation is to obey the law, not enforce it.

If a law says that you must enforce it or other laws, then the only way
you can obey it is to enforce them. Such laws are possible enough;
totalitarian societies have them in abundance, and so FTM do we - not
reporting some crimes does make one, legally, an 'accessory' or a
'conspirator.'

So let me stipulate that this is an example: the law in this case is
that both those of the wrong race who drink at the fountain, and those
who do not report them to the police, are both guilty of an offense.

That still leaves you free to say that, no matter whether any law says
such a thing, you do not recognize it as a real obligation - at which
point, though, we're discussing moral obligations rather than legal
ones. (That's the point I wished to explore anyway; when I asked
whether A has a right, I meant a moral rather than a legal one.)

If tg were running things, then the situation is clear: the only
rights extant are legal rights; in which case (1) B has no right to
drink any of the water - by drinking it he is a 'criminal'

That's not A's problem.

and (2) A

has no right to abet B's crime by not ratting him out.

That's a wrong interpertation of legal, and moral, duty.

For tg, remember, moral duties simply don't exist; the only real duties
are legal duties. And the legal duties, which are quite real, are
whatever the law says they are - if, as in this case, the law says that
A has no right to keep silent, then, for tg, that settles it: A has no
right to keep silent. It's not a matter of interpretation - a legal
system's subjects have no business subjectively 'interpreting' anything
- but of being told what the law says, and then doing it or else.
That's tg's 'objective' replacement for morality - legal positivism -
which he's been advancing in various threads around the place.

My whole reason for starting this spin-off thread was to examine the
implications of that position, and to help distinguish other,
apparently similar, positions like yours from it.

If you were running things, then the fountain would be 'community
property'; in which case all the property rights to it would belong to
the 'community'. B's use of the fountain would be stealing water from
the 'community', and A would be abetting B's theft.

A and B are both members of the community, so neither is doing wrong by
drinking from the fountain, or the well.

Certainly that's how it would be viewed, both morally and legally, in
my community and I daresay in yours as well; and I think it's something
we can both agree on - as a judgement, not as a matter of fact.

Because it's not a simple matter of fact - in some communities it has
not been the case that all community members have had equal legal
rights to use the same drinking fountains etc. Such communities have
existed in my lifetime.

So I have to agree to your statement as a moral judgement only. That's
promising, as it gives us some further points of agreement (that do
distinguish you from the 'objective' position):

That moral, as well as, legal, rights and duties exist;

That moral rights or duties outweigh legal rights or duties (the moral
ones being those that community members actually have, while the legal
ones are just those the state says they have);

That the community (the moral context) is different from the state (the
legal context);

There are 'natural', or fundamental, laws of communities; one of which
is a principle of equal rights for community members.

If those implications are in fact your beliefs, they do distinguish
your own position from legal positivism, and at least give us a basis
for some constructive dialogue.

<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote

So you agree with George's contention that A has a legal duty to use force
to stop B from drinking from the fountain? I thought you opposed the use of
force.

So you agree with George's contention that A has a legal duty to use force
to stop B from drinking from the fountain?

I thought you opposed the use of
force.