It can't quite be the Golden Rule .. "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". I'm an atheist. I have zero holy places to profane. And yet I do think it is immoral to profane someone's holy place, despite my belief that it is a social creation.
I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations."
I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.
The Golden Rule just needs a little more depth to be applied here. You have zero holy places, but if you had property, you'd want people to respect it. Therefore, you should respect other people's property.
I think it's very much condescending if you treat the immorality of piracy as a base assumption held by both parties. If you treat it simply as your own base assumption, that's fine. But treating it as a base assumption of the other side and then arguing against their behavior based on that qualifies in my book.
I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations."
I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.