> ...unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share.
You assume these have no equivalent ethical validity. But you fail to provide a rationale for your assumption. So, why should anyone accept your premise?
In fact, both are equally valid: If you expect others to keep their promise to share something, you should keep your promise to share something, too. If you expect others to keep their promise NOT to share something, you should keep your promise NOT to share something, too.
Both are derived from the Golden Rule and are thus equally valid.
Consequently, if you feel entitled to break your promise NOT to share something, why should anyone else respect their promise to share something?
You assume these have no equivalent ethical validity. But you fail to provide a rationale for your assumption. So, why should anyone accept your premise?
In fact, both are equally valid: If you expect others to keep their promise to share something, you should keep your promise to share something, too. If you expect others to keep their promise NOT to share something, you should keep your promise NOT to share something, too.
Both are derived from the Golden Rule and are thus equally valid.
Consequently, if you feel entitled to break your promise NOT to share something, why should anyone else respect their promise to share something?