15 ms·

And I think that it is morally justified that I should be able to use roads, send my kids to school, and drink water that has been paid for by all those not sma

And I think that it is morally justified that I should be able to use roads, send my kids to school, and drink water that has been paid for by all those not smart enough or earn billions enough to avoid paying taxes. I think it is morally right that I shouldn't pay my fair share because I and my other well heeled chaps can lobby governments in some small country to pay 25 times less tax than others. I think it is morally right to do whatever I want as long as it is legal (in some country I can influence) regardless of how much it costs others. In short I think it is morally justified to be legally and unconscionably unfair to others. Sir, in short, your moral arguments are non sequitur.

fastball 9y ago
My point is that this isn't about morality. Taxes are not a moral problem. Tax evasion is a moral problem because breaking the law is a moral problem. I don't think forcing people to pay any amount of money (taxes) is moral. Is it good for society? Yes. Is it moral? Who knows? How are you so easily making moral judgements when morality is so subjective? I find the idea of forcing my morality on anyone else repugnant, except in the case where all parties have agreed to the moral code (laws).
- tankenmate 9y ago
  I'll quote the first sentence from your post, "I think tax avoidance is morally justified." But more broadly, laws are not always moral. If you equate laws with being moral (or equitable which is hopefully a subjunct matter), then personally I think your view of the world is far more black and white than reality. In my view morality (and part of which is equality) should lead to legality not the other way around.
  - fastball 9y ago
    I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with your democracy, and that needs to be sorted out first. I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.
    - tankenmate 9y ago
      To not believe in objective morality, I'm assuming because you are not religious or maybe because it is too difficult to "pin down", to me seems to lack intellectual rigour and displays a lack of social empathy. Morality, even aside from the religious back and forth, is a difficult and nuanced subject but that is not to say that it lacks a strong core that most reasonable people believe in (even apart from religious beliefs). Organised social empathy, along with advanced intellect (the ability to conceptualise the subjective and objective aspects of morality), are probably the biggest fundamentals of human nature that separates us from other species on this planet. In my opinion giving those fundamentals short shrift only denigrates yourself.
      - fastball 9y ago
        Without a higher power you're left with diads that are impossible to resolve logically. For example, "the ends justify the means" vs "the ends do not justify the means". Two people can believe in some ultimate social good (your version of "objective morality"). That doesn't mean they'll get there in the same way (my version of "objective morality").
    - zentiggr 9y ago
      > I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Unfortunately, "participants" turns out to be decided by lobbying influence, not votes. So yes, definitely an issue with this democracy.
    - explainplease 9y ago
      > I personally do not believe in objective morality. Then why is murder wrong?
      - fastball 9y ago
        Who says it's wrong?

fastball 9y ago

My point is that this isn't about morality. Taxes are not a moral problem. Tax evasion is a moral problem because breaking the law is a moral problem. I don't think forcing people to pay any amount of money (taxes) is moral. Is it good for society? Yes. Is it moral? Who knows? How are you so easily making moral judgements when morality is so subjective? I find the idea of forcing my morality on anyone else repugnant, except in the case where all parties have agreed to the moral code (laws).

tankenmate 9y ago
I'll quote the first sentence from your post, "I think tax avoidance is morally justified." But more broadly, laws are not always moral. If you equate laws with being moral (or equitable which is hopefully a subjunct matter), then personally I think your view of the world is far more black and white than reality. In my view morality (and part of which is equality) should lead to legality not the other way around.
- fastball 9y ago
  I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with your democracy, and that needs to be sorted out first. I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.
  - tankenmate 9y ago
    To not believe in objective morality, I'm assuming because you are not religious or maybe because it is too difficult to "pin down", to me seems to lack intellectual rigour and displays a lack of social empathy. Morality, even aside from the religious back and forth, is a difficult and nuanced subject but that is not to say that it lacks a strong core that most reasonable people believe in (even apart from religious beliefs). Organised social empathy, along with advanced intellect (the ability to conceptualise the subjective and objective aspects of morality), are probably the biggest fundamentals of human nature that separates us from other species on this planet. In my opinion giving those fundamentals short shrift only denigrates yourself.
    - fastball 9y ago
      Without a higher power you're left with diads that are impossible to resolve logically. For example, "the ends justify the means" vs "the ends do not justify the means". Two people can believe in some ultimate social good (your version of "objective morality"). That doesn't mean they'll get there in the same way (my version of "objective morality").
  - zentiggr 9y ago
    > I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Unfortunately, "participants" turns out to be decided by lobbying influence, not votes. So yes, definitely an issue with this democracy.
  - explainplease 9y ago
    > I personally do not believe in objective morality. Then why is murder wrong?
    - fastball 9y ago
      Who says it's wrong?