Therein is the most glaring shortfall of opinion; Too often people see no distinction between opinion and fact. It is strange the anger that is aroused by the divergence of opinion.

As I read this I find much humor in the fact that some are insistant on a singular ethical idea, as if there has ever been one ethic by which all decisions are made. And yet most with a strong opinion will carry the same argument based on their ethic, while they assume that everyone should have it as well.

This reasoning is dangerous, a person can be so blinded by his own opinions he stops seeing the facts.

I wasn't referring to your post Mr. Townsend. But with yours in mind I remember a little speach in the first "men in black": "A Person is smart, People are dumb panicky animals, and you know it."

There will never be a time where a person can trust in even a reasonable amount of respect, I believe. There is always someone who will try to exploit your trust.

True.

This whole thing is many sided. Many older magicians bemoan that so many can learn from videos and the abundance of books whereas the older magicians had to learn at the knee of another magician.

But if the younger magicians try to spread their knowledge to others (as was done for the older magicians) suddenly it becomes unethical. Did every magician over 30 who had a mentor only learn tricks that mentor created him/herself? Do only those who learned from Vernon himself have the right to teach Vernon tricks?

It is a tricky situation.

I can’t really see where sharing a trick from a magazine would hurt the author. If paid for the trick, he already has his money. It’s not like he’s going to make any more off it. Most put these tricks in magazines without getting paid, they do it to get their name out. Sort of saying, here’s a sample of what I have, I hope you buy my other works. The more people that know about the trick the better off the author is. Sharing in fact could be a help to the author.

Of course the publisher does come up short when the magazine is not sold, and I do agree we do need to support them. But then there again, in some instances sharing could help promote the magazine. “The fear of loss is much greater than the desire for gain.” I think the magazine people are much better off saying, “here’s a sample of my magazine,” than crying about losing a sale or two.

Again, I do think we need to support the magazines, the authors, and at the same time help our fiends in magic. Share a little and guide a lot.

Phaedrus, I’ve enjoyed reading your well written thoughts. I see nothing at all wrong with you teaching your daughter. One day, she too can help support all the authors, magazines, and her friends in magic. I think you’re speaking for many. Thanks.


Tom

Hmm... I'm enjoying this thread, since there has been some very thoughtful and informed commentary from Phaedrus and cloneman. I'd hate to see it get derailed...

Tom, I'd be interested to read in more specific detail your rationale for your own ethics. It seems to me that many ethical decisions are made intuitively, and you haven't given any sign in this thread that yours are any different. With that in mind, I'm not sure you've really understood the meaning of "begging the question." For one, you misused the term after having it explained to you (which may just have been a momentary lapse, or a stylistic issue, but it makes me wonder).

So, perhaps describing exactly what you're objecting to and, most importantly, why you object to it, would help keep the discussion on track. It's what you're asking of other people, and I think it would be only fair for you to do the same.

-Travis

JT wrote:



But Jon, this to me seems to me only strengthen the argument for sharing.. The history of the race for the structure of DNA was extremely ugly as you know, with important people not getting the credit they deserved. And this happened because of the hoarding, rather than the sharing of information.

I think I am more and more swayed by the argument "Would a doctor not share with a collegue something she read in Psychology Today. Or should a teacher feel guilty discussing something in the faculty lounge he had read in Educator Magazine? " I don't see the comment about the DNA research being an effective counter argument.

When a trick is published in a magazine, I think it becomes public to the profession. I respect that an inventor may want to keep their work private; but then one shouldn't publish that material.

But let me ask you directly, specifically, so that at least I can respect your wishes: how would you feel JT, if I shared something you published, say, in Magic magazine, with a friend who has a strong interest in magic, but doesn't have the magazine?

Jack Shalom

Phaedrus,

“If I teach a young person something, I believe I am furthering the art of magic.”
Finally there is the statement of a budding ethic. I have been waiting so long to hear one. Sadly, I fear the emotionally charged state of this thread might be too much to endure asking questions about this quite promising and exciting turn of events. Respectfully I will with hold any questions until you say you would like to entertain them.

I post the following not to badger anyone but to make some points and discuss some factual occurrences.

To set the record straight, you claim I have: “ made a personal attack on [your] ethics” Am I to assume you feel questioning and challenging is an attack? So for the record, what I have done is:

*Express my opinion on the reality of our legal system. (I think we can agree to disagree on this point.)
*Ask you why it should be different to teach a friend as opposed to teach a daughter.
*Ask you if it would have been better to buy her the book rather than teach her the trick.
*Express that I have concerns over your actions.
*Disagree with your statement about “partial sales”
*Point out that you follow your statement about people believing their opinions as fact with an opinion of your own followed by hoped justification.
*Point out how bending an ethic just a little really creates a compounded problem.
*Provide examples of how the actions in question could harm an author’s right to his due income on his material.
*Explain that it is not my intention to change anyone’s opinion.
*Point out that almost all of my meatier questions have gone unanswered.

It is a rather simple matter for me. A person who creates a magic trick enters into an ethical agreement, implied or implicit, with a magazine to have his trick published within that magazine. The creator retains the ethical right to the trick for publishing as a DVD, within a book, or any other way he can conceive.

The magazine has attained the ethical right to teach the trick within its pages to its subscribers. The subscribers may be allowed an implied ethical consent for them to perform this trick. The readers never enter into any ethical agreement as to their right to teach the trick. Legally there is little to stop them but ethically they never entered into any agreement to be able to teach the creator’s work.

Let’s lay some facts on the table and move forward.

You wrote,”I am arguing AGAINST the blanket assumption that any and all instances of sharing are by definition "unethical." Great, tell us who said that and we can address the issue.

It is my belief that the purpose of ethic is to go beyond the minimalism of “the law’s” protection. Would you agree with that belief?

Here is a legit semantic question for the copyright gang. Do you believe copyright gives you ownership of the information and ideas within a book, or do you believe copyright gives no one ownership of the information and ideas within a book? The outcome might be the same but I believe the concept is not the same.

In closing and in the interest of communication, would it not be better to ask questions of things you do not understand or know rather than make incorrect emotionally charged assumptions of meanings?

Travis,

Wow, all these assumptions and finally someone asks. If you like I can go into greater long gory detail over the generalities. Probably best done at a convention. If it suffices for now, know that it stems from "The Greats" of magic enduring poverty stricken ends to thier lives while their life's passion work is republished and republished, others making money off it and the mind behind it making nothing. Know that their widows are descended upon and have the collected treasures of these greats pulled from underneath them at mere pennies on the dollar due to the tragedy of needing to have some money to pay the bills which their husbands had always taken care of. These treasures are not taken so that they can have a momento of their hero, though that would be a rather tragic way to get a momento, but rather to sell for a profit to those who will pay the "real" value of these treasures.

And since you also asked, I am objecting to two things. One, that very valid and purposeful questions go unanswered. I could assume why that is but... Two, the way someone who simply asks some tough questions gets treated.

Give me a heads up to which "begging the question" use you mean and I will get you that answer.

Jack, I did have something published in Magic magazine, and my feeling is that if you were to show someone that item and also let them know where you got it, it would be a win/win for all involved. IHMO when someone learns that a magazine has valuable contents... they are more likely to support the magazine.

It's a version of Elmsley's Ghost ( the elmsley count ) count where you seem to show both sides of the cards. It also has application to routines where you use a Gemini count.

When something of mine goes into print, it's usually because I want the ideas and methods out there for others to explore in their own way.

Tom:

For the record, here is what you wrote:



I think the implication behind each one is clear. For you now to say, "Well, I wasn't really attacking you, I was just asking questions..." is disingenuous and, frankly, cowardly. But I'll let that go.

The problem that keeps arising here is the same one that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, i.e. that people often confuse facts and opinions. There is a fundamental truth about human thought which you have not yet grasped, and it is this: just because you believe something, it doesn't mean that it's true. Consider the following:



This sounds very nice. It is also pure fantasy, and has absolutely no basis in objective reality. There are no such things as "ethical rights;" they are simply mental constructs that you have created in order to justify your beliefs. I'm sure that it gives you a nice warm feeling of moral superiority to believe in them, but that doesn't mean that they exist, or that anyone else is obligated to believe in them.

Let's take a look at something else:



If you are not saying that all instances of sharing are unethical, then logically you must believe that some instances are ethical. Now we're getting somewhere! Could you please elaborate on the circumstances under which you believe it is ethical to share information? That is actually the only question I was trying to discuss here.

In an effort to explain your "ethics," you offer the following:



There are two problems here. First, anecdotes are not evidence. Anyone can make up any wild story they want to justify any position they want to take. In order for this to be a valid argument, there need to be verifiable facts. Who are these unfortunate "Greats"? What are the circumstances of their final years? Can you give us a list of names, dates, explicit examples of how they were taken advantage of? If you can, great: we can all learn something. If not, then this is just meaningless blather.

Second, even if everything you say is absolutely true, you haven't provided any evidence that there is a direct causal link between the sharing of information and the fate of these poor wretches. From your description, it sounds as if they were the victims of bad business decisions and unscrupulous publishers. I can't really see how this relates to the morality of the topic at hand.

Instead of giving us a moral and ethical basis for your beliefs, you present us with a tautology: Morality is what you think is right, and immorality is what you think is wrong. The issue of "begging the question" here is that you have already decided that sharing is wrong, and is therefore self-evident. If someone doesn't share your ethical view, it's because they are wrong, and therefore any arguments they might have are meaningless.

My plea for communication is based on a mutual respect for opposing viewpoints. It cannot happen if one side is so absolutely convinced of the veracity of its position that it automatically dismisses contrary arguments. As I said, I don't think I have all the answers, which is why I think a mature and rational debate of the issues is so important. After all, there are three sides to every issue: yours, mine, and the truth. I think we're still a very long way from the truth.

Thomas here is to playing in the mud!



Hmmm, having done lectures and being paid to do them my answer is I'm happy to just be there.
The sale of items such as tricks and notes at a lecture is to generate more money for the performer. If one person buys them I made $25 extra that night. If the person decides to share my notes with others I would encourage it. If they like the material that same group is likely to buy something else of mine.
As for being "proper"...define your definition of "proper".



You are comparing apples and oranges Tom. When it is in regards to sharing it is about the art and not the money (I have shared everything I have ever sold for free with my confidants). When I do my job, that is as an "Entertainer, Performer, Lecturer or Consultant", I should be paid. The person who has hired me has decided that the value of my services is equal to or greater than the fee I charge. If they decide it isn't then I am not hired.



No, because of ethics. However, If I changed something in the routine that either dramtically increases the impact, decreases the skill level needed to perform the effect or changes the effect entirely (different presentation) then yes it is ok that I publish it (with references to the original routine) under my name.



I feel that before going any further we should discuss the definitions of the ideas we are using here.
I see this thread as a discussion of three things; Values, Morals and Ethics. I'll define them in order as I have come to understand the meanings. Feel free to correct my definitions.

Values are our fundamental beliefs. Values are the standards that we use to determine right and wrong. Our values are the basis for our morals.

Morals are values that we have based on our particular system of belief. They enable us to define right and wrong, good and bad. When we act in accordance with our morals we act morally. When we act in opposition to our morals we act immorally.

Ethics is the study of good/right actions (as we understand them currently) and how individuals make those particular decisions. When an individuals actions are in harmony with their morals we say that individual has acted ethically. To act in opposition to ones morals is said to be acting unethically

Ethics are determined by the society not the individual. Morals can change within a society over time as can values and systems of belief. Therefore the study of ethics is not a static study it is a living science.

I believe, Tom, that your use of the word "unethical" is incorrect. This is perrhaps where some of the confusion lies.

Wow a thread killer eh? Sorry about that guys I was enjoying the discussion.

It's okay 14...

Some of us spent time with the philosophy students in college, and later on read the works of Ayn Rand.

Most of this community couldn't tell you about their metaphysics if asked. As to their ontology.... um.... well let's just say it's kind of "eminent domain" and runs parallel to some stages of early childhood development.

Most here would benefit from some research of the words "morals", "ethos", "right", "correct", "true", "valid", "appropriate", "habit"... and probably a few more for this discussion. When one knows the distinctions, one has the options to be more precise in their statements.

Remember, reading is fundamental. Writing is an advanced skill.

Phaedrus wrote:

Sorry, I don’t buy that—not for one minute. I’m going to go off on a tangent here, but stay with me.

Right and wrong are fact, and legality is opinion. Allow me to elaborate. What is or isn’t legal is always changing. Old laws are repealed and new ones enacted. But a law can be right and a law can be wrong. What’s right supersedes what is legal.

The problem with Phaedrus’ statement is that there are evil people in the world who gain power and make wrong things legal to enable them to wield their power. Slavery, for example, was legal in the USA for many years. One human being could OWN another as property and do whatever he wanted. He could rape his slaves, work them without nourishment or pay, beat them without reason and even kill them. All within his legal rights—all within the law. All wrong, and there was a revolt, a war, an uprising to change the law--to make what was wrong and legal illegal. The legality of the matter changed, but even when it was legal it was WRONG.

It was wrong for the despots of history to brutally kill or neglect their own and other people for their own greedy ends. Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Leopold, etc, all made things legal that were WRONG and things illegal that were RIGHT. After being overthrown, the laws changed, but right and wrong remained constant.

Regardless of your ethical or religious beliefs or ethnic heritage, it is WRONG to rape, kill and mutilate an innocent two-year-old child and put his head on a pole in your front yard, even if he is the son of your enemy, or if your religion dictates it, or if your tribe or nation legalizes it. That is simply NEVER right, regardless of whether it is legal.

Laws and “situational ethics” change, but true right and wrong are timeless and universal. The problem with laws is that they are often made by despots or people with evil or selfish intent, and they often have loopholes. Situation ethics are nothing more than an excuse for greed and selfishness—they are always based on one’s own wants and needs without regard for the wants and needs of others.

Put simply, we always should (though we may be only occasionally successful) try to do what is right. And most of the time, if you have to ask if something is wrong (or unethical), it probably is.
There is an easy answer to right/wrong as it pertains to this topic. In this day and age, it is very easy to reach the people who create the routines—by email, phone, PM, etc. It is usually a matter of less than a day or two to contact the person who created the routine in question that appeared in the magazine in question and simply ASK if you can teach that routine to your friend. If he says OK, go for it! If the answer is no, the RIGHT thing to do is abide by his wishes.

There is a well known magic maker who has taken effects put out by Whit Haydn and others, made an inferior copy with differently worded and less complete instructions and released them on the magic market. Whether or not Whit or others have legal recourse to getting "Stiffed" this is WRONG. Just because you are within your legal rights does not mean you are being ethical. So do the RIGHT thing!

Rant over. Thank you for your time.

I think Phaedrus' point was that law is factual insofar as it is the enforced (idealistically speaking) thing. For better or worse, it is what the public entity defines as what, in fact, should or should not be done. Phaedrus' "fact" word does *not* imply right or wrong under all possible belief systems or assumptions, just that it must be considered as fact due to the relative certainty of sanctions flowing from violating it. "Right and wrong" in the context of his comment seems to make sense as "opinions."

Scott:

First, let me begin by saying how much I respect you and your work, especially the things you've been generous enough to share on the Online-Visions website. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts here, as it gives me an opportunity to clarify what I think.



You're absolutely right: laws can and do change. What I meant here is that at any given time it's a simple matter to ascertain what the law might be, whether or not that law is something you agree with. Even if the law changes, we can know whether or not what we do is legal according to the set of laws existent at the time we do it. In other words, whether or not you think it's wrong to kill, the fact is that it's illegal.



Whether or not you believe slavery was right or wrong, the fact is that it was the law of the land at a certain period in our history. This is what I meant by legality being fact based: you could legally own slaves, and the law would support you in this. This is a fact. Whether or not you believe that is right or wrong is opinion.

The way you have phrased your first sentence implies that I believe legality is the same as morality. Let me be clear: I do not. However, I am always on guard when someone asserts questions of morality as absolute truths. It's easy to use examples like slavery, rape, and murder, because they are universally reviled by almost everyone. Therefore, it's easy to believe that they are self-evident and universal truths. Sadly, this has proven not to be the case throughout much of human history; we can lament that not everyone holds the same values as we do, but the very fact that such things happen shows that they are not inherent values.

After looking over what you, Tom, and others have written here, I find that I agree with almost everything that has been said about the morality of sharing knowledge of magic with others. However, the one point that I can't seem to get around is the argument of what is "unethical." As I've said before, it's easy to determine what is legal, but what basis do we have to decide whether something is moral or immoral? Until we can answer that question, the argument boils down to "it's wrong because I say so." And that's just not good enough for me.

I was recently perusing a magic website operated by a Christan magician, and he had written a fairly extensive essay about whether or not it was okay for Christians to perform magic, as some of the more conservative sects have declared it unequivocably wrong. His conclusion was that it is okay, sort of, provided that magicians follow a specific code of conduct. For example, in his opinion it is not okay for magicians to use scantily clad assistants, because that would tend to foster thoughts that would lead to sin. It was also not okay to perform anything occult related, because that would imply powers other than God's; that means that bizarre magic was absolutely prohibited. There were many other restrictions listed, but the point is that what this person considered wrong was very different from what I and other people might.

The problem is that what you consider right or wrong depends entirely on your values system, and this can be radically different from person to person. For example, I don't share the same value system with the Christian magician I mentioned above, so I don't believe that the restrictions he listed are valid. And of course, there's nothing wrong with that; we are free to believe what we want. The problems occur when we try to project our values onto others, and to label them as wrong or unethical when their values don't correspond to ours.

For example, Peter Marucci, for whom I have enormous respect, has a very large number of occult themed and bizarre magic effects posted at Online-Visions. The Christian magician would argue that what he is doing is immoral and wrong; would you agree with that? I would not; does that make me wrong as well? Our opinions of right or wrong are entirely dependent on our values, and it's far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that our values are the only correct ones, and therefore truths.

You wrote:


I'm sorry, but if right and wrong were truly "timeless and universal," we wouldn't have war, bigotry, slavery (which still exists in many parts of the world), murder, theft and all the other ills that have always plagued mankind. I think the most that we can say is that what people BELIEVE to be right and wrong changes over time as their values change. As you yourself pointed out, at one time a significant number of people believed that slavery was okay, indeed that it was self-evidently not wrong because it had always existed and was supported by the Bible. Our values today are such that we can look at it and see it for the evil that it was, but the values of the people at the time caused them to believe that it was acceptable.



I agree. The problem is knowing what is right and what is wrong, and this is always going to depend on what your values are. Some issues are fairly straightforward to decide, such as the ones you mentioned: rape, murder, slavery. Others are less black and white: abortion, capital punishment, birth control, sex before marriage. Even if you think you have absolute answers of right and wrong for the issues above, there will always be someone who has a different opinion. If your response to everyone who disagrees with you is that they are unethical, immoral, or just flat out wrong, then you have missed the opportunity to explore the values behind those opinions.



Why? As it happens, I agree with you, but you haven't given any reasons for WHY you think this is wrong. I'm sure that in your value system, this is self-evident, but what if someone doesn't share your values? Simply stating that something is wrong doesn't make it so. If it did, then no one would be using scantily clad assistants or performing bizarre magic.

And that is my objection to the use of words like "wrong" and "unethical" in this discussion. Questions of right and wrong depend on individual values, and unless you can express what those values are and why you believe in them, then you are just spouting an opinion, and as they say, opinions are like a certain gastrointestinal orifice: everyone has one.

I'm sure that by now people are convinced that my values support the indiscriminate sharing of magic, so I suppose I should follow my own advice and explain just exactly what my values are. I believe that it's important that our actions not harm other people. I believe that the only actions that can be accurately be called unethical are those that knowingly cause harm to someone else. I believe that it's important to support the creative efforts of people in our field, so that they will be able to continue creating for all of us. I believe that for magic to advance and grow, information needs to be shared, provided that such sharing doesn't cause harm to another person. I don't believe that sharing automatically causes harm in all circumstances.

From my value system, I can say the following: I have paid for every book, tape, and DVD in my collection. I have never copied for another or received copies of material that was the intellectual property of another person. I have taught magic to my daughter that I learned from my collection, and I have performed (not exposed) effects that I learned from my collection in exchange for money. Now, you may disagree with my values, but I don't think it's fair to say that I have acted unethically if I have always acted in accordance with them.

If you want people to do the right thing, you can't simply call them names like unethical, immoral, etc. You have to understand what their values are, and then try to get them to change their values. For example, if someone thinks copying of magic DVDs is no big deal, you have to address the underlying value, and explain exactly why your values are different (e.g. that taking something without paying for it causes financial harm to someone). To do that, you have to understand and be able to express what your own values are: saying something is wrong simply because it seems self-evident is just intellectual laziness.

Scott, I sincerely hope I haven't offended you with what I've expressed here. I can tell that you and I share many of the same values, which makes it easy for me to agree with much of what you've said. However, I think it's important not to assume that right and wrong are the same for everyone. If we can do that, then we can have the beginnings of communication, which I have repeatedly said is the basis for any kind of common ground on this issue.

I categorically disagree that right and wrong are opinions. What you BELIVE to be right or wrong are your opinions, but right is right and wrong is wrong, whether you agree or not. There are timeless truths and rules for behavior that are not subject to debate or "opinion." You can disagree that gravity is true. But if you jump off a tall bridge, you will surely fall to your death, regardless of your opinion of the truth of gravity!

Simply stating that you have different "values" or "opinions" doesn’t change anything. Right and wrong are right and wrong, whether you personally believe them to be or not. If you invent or create an item and I steal it and claim it as my own and kill you to keep you from claiming it, that is WRONG, whether I think it was the right thing for me to do or not!

Admittedly, there are some "neutral or "gray" areas, but I like to think that a little thing like the Ten Commandments, is a good and timeless barometer of right and wrong. You will almost certainly reply that I am voicing my religious bias. However, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong no matter how much one wants to justify it in his own mind so that he can sleep at night.

There are opinions, there is belief, but neither has an impact on truth. Truth is non-subjective and it is and always will be true, no matter how many cry "false!"

Call me narrow-minded, but this is TRUTH, not merely my opinion. Disagree with me all you want. I won't hate you for it. But it will in no way affect the FACT that truth remains truth, right remains right and wrong remains wrong regardless of our opinions, beliefs or bias.

If the ten commandments were a good and timeless barometer of right and wrong, than why was there an entire "book" written around this? If it was enough why was the rest of the "book" there? Call me a man without value, but in a "book" I read it said in effect "all things are lawfull, but not all things are advantageous". Even readers of that "book" disagree about nearly everything in it. Did you know that there was a "group of readers" of that particular "book" that took it apon themselves to slaughter and torture many people for nothing else than their desire to continue living their lives as they always had? Did you know that there was a time when you could be burned to death for owning a copy of this "book"? Burned by the way, by the people who in fact were teaching you about this very
same "book". My point is there is no firm fixed notion of right and wrong there has never once in human history been such a thing. Murder, Theft, Adultery? These have always been justified and glorified as much as they have been hated and condemned. The reason? There is always a question of what the definition of such is.

Therein is the shortfall of opinion, too often people see no distinction between it and fact.

You live in a world where there is no one moral value, even if you chose not to see it.

This sounds mean and I don't want it to. I have nothing against any form of faith. As a man without faith I find others faith facinating.

Right and wrong, good, bad, evil... such words serve parents to guide children and children to stay out of trouble. All are context dependant terms. Good Jews have killed and good Christians have destroyed civilizations to save souls.

We get into HUGE problems when adults use these terms in discussions of real issues with other adults.

If we were to continue this discussion, would we do it in the frame of a childish perspective, where there are arbiters of these terms and consequences for behavior? Or will se continue as adults discussing each situation as particular and seeking what is useful from there?

Up to you.

Scott:

You are missing the point that I'm trying to make, which is simply that questions of right and wrong are dependent on moral values, and that these can be different among different people. You are saying that right and wrong are self-evident, but if this were the case, there wouldn't be any of those gray areas you mentioned. Furthermore, I think it's incredibly dangerous to say that right and wrong are inherent values, because that opens the door to abuse by the unscrupulous, who can use the issue to justify their own agenda. After all, debate and compromise are not required if matters of right and wrong are so obvious: I don't need to justify anything I believe if I just say, "Well, that's wrong; it's obvious."

You continue to set up a strawman argument, using examples that are clearly against the values of almost every person on the planet: murder, rape, slavery. It's easy to say that these are self-evident, because no one is actually going to go on record in defense of them. But about other issues? Take abortion, for example: you may believe that it is wrong, but are you willing to say that the morality of it is self-evident? That is exactly what anti-abortionists believe, and no discussion is required, because they KNOW it's wrong. The problem with confusing your beliefs with facts is that you don't need to make room for the opinions of other people: "I'm right, because it's obvious." And without a coherent value on which to base your opinions, people can be led away from the very morality they are trying to champion. That is why some people who believe that abortion is self-evidently wrong can drift into doing things like blowing up abortion clinics and gunning down abortion doctors. These things happen because people believe they are right without a framework of values. If your stance against abortion is that all life has value, then you less likely to murder someone.

The problem with your argument is that it is circular: right is right and wrong is wrong. But what is right? How do you define it? If your definition is that "I know it when I see it," then you are doing nothing more than justifying your own biases and opinions. For example, do you think that birth control, sex before marriage, or divorce are self-evidently right or wrong? If you don't, then your entire thesis that right and wrong are immutable, set qualities of the universe goes out the window.

Take killing, for example. Most people would agree that this is wrong. But what about in self-defense? What about to protect the life of a child? What about in wartime? What about capital punishment? The context of an action has a great deal to do with the morality of it. If you aren't willing to say that all killing is wrong in all cases, then you can't seriously argue that this is a self-evident moral value.

I find it interesting that you refer to the Ten Commandments as being a guide to moral behavior. The first four commandments have little to do with law and morality, and the first three are indicative of tremendous insecurity on the part of the entity that is supposedly issuing them: I am the lord they God, and thou shalt have no other; don't make any graven images; don't take my name in vain... Wouldn't it have been easier just to say, yo, show some respect? And the order to set aside a holy day isn't really an issue of ethics or morality, unless you believe that other days are somehow unholy. So, we have four commandments that have nothing to do with moral conduct.

The next one is to honor one's parents. This is a harmless idea, I suppose, except that it doesn't really apply to the orphans that God has created, and it can't really be enforced in law. It does seem funny, though, that God didn't see fit to issue the same kind of order for the protection of children. Of course, this is the same God that frequently urged his followers to exterminate enemy tribes down to the last infant, so I suppose He didn't want to create any kinds of moral conflicts.

The commandments against murder and theft seem fairly straightforward, but then again, there has never been a society, including Islamic, Buddhist, and Confucian cultures, in which murder and theft were acceptable practices, so this isn't really anything special. And again, since the commandment is "Thou shalt not kill," we don't really know if this includes warfare. Again, this is hardly an issue of black and white.

The injunction against lying is also a fairly useful one, but there have been few courts in any society in history that approved of perjury, so I don't think that we need a commandment to prevent it. The next one, about adultery, actually makes sense, because that is something that people can actually refrain from doing. However, the next one about covetousness makes no sense whatsoever; saying that people shouldn't take their neighbor's cattle or wife (and I have to question the value system of anyone who equates a wife with cattle) is reasonable, but saying that they shouldn't even THINK about it is ridiculous.

If you believe that the God issuing these commandments is the same one who actually created the people he is issuing the commandments to, I have to ask why he would create, in his own image, a murderous, covetous, lying, disrespectful, adulterous species. First, he creates them sick, and then commands them to be well? That doesn't sound very ethical.

Also, it seems funny to me that there are no injuncions against rape, child abuse, genocide, or slavery. In fact, there are many more than 10 commandments in the old testament, including some that actually recommend enslavement, mutilation, stoning, and the mass murder of civilians. How are we to decide which ones are self-evident?

The subtext of all of this, of course, is that sharing magical material is the equivalent of theft. But again, this comes down to how you define it: if you consider any and all instances of sharing to be theft, then of course you have a circular argument that sharing is wrong. However, I have found that magicians have a weirdly skewed sense of what intellectual property is, and how it should be protected.

As I have mentioned, I am a writer, and I make my living from writing books. However, I don't worry about whether or not everyone who reads my work has paid for it. I know that some people buy books and keep them, others read a book and then sell it, others buy it and lend it to friends, and still others don't even pay for it but borrow it from a library. I have NEVER heard of any serious writers who have complained about people reading their work without paying for it; on the contrary, the more people who are exposed to our work, the better.

The only people I have ever heard argue to the contrary are magicians. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, in no other field do people complain about the sharing of information. I can't imagine a person who, say, writes a book about plumbing repair later complaining about someone who has read the book sharing what he has learned with other people, and feeling ripped off because of it. That's simply not how the real world works.

If it's not unethical to lend a friend a novel or a book about plumbing repair, why should a book about magic be any different? If I can teach my daughter how to make an origami crane from a book I bought, why I can't teach her how to do a trick from a magic book? The prevailing ethic among some magicians seems to be, "If you buy something, you are the only one who can ever see it or know about it; if anybody else learns it, then they are morally obligated to pay me!" This insistence on making money from anyone who knows an effect or technique strikes me as pure and simple greed, which I neither respect nor will subsidize.

Any field of knowledge can only continue to advance and grow by the sharing of knowledge. If a person is serious about the art of magic, then his concern should be more about expanding the base of knowledge than about making a buck. For example, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

What I take from this is that he is more concerned with contributing to the art of magic than he is about making money, even if that is a secondary consideration (by the way, Mr. Townsend: this is my interpretation of what you wrote; if I have misrepresented what you meant, please feel free to correct me). If more people were like this, and were more concerned about what they can contribute to magic than about how magic can help them make a buck, I think there would be less hysteria about the idea that people are actually out there trying to help each other by sharing what they know.

Hi,

Phaedrus: I feel you've taken my words at their intended meaning. And thank you.

I have been fortunate in having been given the opportunities to learn from people many here consider insirations, living legends etc. The business side of this craft is secondary to my love of the artistic side, and my explorations of what is magic and where we can have magic.

I'm happy to cite a magazine article when something novel appears. Also pleased to start someone down the path to reading more by giving them the magazine. IMHO those with self respect and a desire to honor the art tend to build their libraries as they work on material. ie to own the sources for the ideas they use. it's an honor thing. you get not only the material but a sort of license to ask questions of the author/inventor etc.

Right/Wrong... not gonna use those words too much anymore. There is a wonderful literary device at the start of the first commandment in the old testement (books of moses if you want). It begins with "I am the ..." which is a wonderful accomplishment. It creates a fictitious writer and proceeds to imply that the words which follow are to be interpreted as spoken or somehow directly attached to the fictitious (remember they are just words here) author. Nice trick. No comment made or implied about any matter of faith on this item, just a comment on a semiotic/lingusitic technique used in the written statement.