Only, Matt's advice is correct. You should not ask for legal advice on HN, even if it is possible that in one of the many parallel universes there exists an entity you trust more than a lawyer.
Nonetheless, I believe it is incorrect to state that one would be putting one's self in harms way by discussing legal matters with a non-lawyer, as the article implies.
Here's an example: My neighbor has a large tree bordering my yard, from which a branch is hanging over the fence and interfering with my shit. Is it legal for me to chop the branch? Maybe in some jurisdictions, but who knows? Should I call a lawyer right away? Let me see what my wife thinks.
Me: "Hey honey, what should I do about this branch? Should I call a lawyer?"
Honey: "A lawyer?!?!? For God's sake why would you do that? That's just Ethel's tree. Just cut the damn thing down."
-- or --
"Umm, Johnny Cochrane, Jr. lives there. Call five lawyers."
I have often discussed legal matters with experienced businesspeople and investors. Of course, when the conversation turns to "Ok, what is the next action step?" the consensus is nearly always "Talk to a lawyer" :-)
(Sorry, it was there, I had to...)
When you consider the legal questions that are asked, his advice seems very sound.
But sometimes you aren't looking for specific legal advice - you're looking to educate yourself as an entrepreneur. I've learned quite a bit about contracts, business formation, tax law, etc. from my attorneys - but I've also learned a bit from other entrepreneurs.
Good thing you included the word "almost"... :~)
You are captain of a cruise liner full of children. The ship is boarded by pirates. These pirates are utterly evil and utterly truthful. They demand that either you eat one child, who happens to be about to die of a congenital heart defect, or they will blow up the ship and kill hundreds of children.
What do you do?
I can, without hesitation, not delaying for one second, not second guessing myself whatsoever, with certainty as broad as the universe itself...
Also, though, in reference to the silly pirate example below, something being absolutely wrong does not prevent the possible necessity of doing that thing to prevent greater wrongs. Its still wrong, just possibly less wrong.
So I would agree that eating children is wrong.
Eating a child is wrong regardless of how one would justify it.
Lets break it down. Is killing children always wrong?
In many countries it's legal (today) to kill children. In some cultures surplus children were left to die of exposure (Sparta for example).
And once the child is dead - well some cultures eat the dead as a form of burial.
There goes your absolute.
Just so you know: it's not possible to create a moral system from first principles. It always has to be imposed from outside. In most countries the bible serves as the starting point.
If you want, you can have one guy decide, and use his ideas. But you can never defend them as absolute and correct. Another person, just as logical, can come up with conflicting ideas, and you can never prove one is right and the other wrong.
I cannot see any biological advantage of not eating your children in emergency situations -- i.e. where you need to eat the child (survival, extortion, ...) and she won't survive anyways.
Our standards have changed, too -- not even a century ago, holocausts were considered absolutely appropriate (even by scientists!).
Plenty of societies, both ancient and modern, have legalized, or even encouraged, what we define as 'murder'.
And note that I'm not arguing that murder is acceptable; rather, that the definition for it changes so much between societies as to make the statement "Murder is wrong in all human societies." a completely meaningless phrase.
A likely explanation for the prohibition against the killing of other humans is strictly pragmatic: Societies where members can kill each other freely will self-destruct. This has nothing to do with 'murder being wrong', as much as free homicide not being a very stable evolutionary path.