3 ms·

> The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK) And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly

> The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK) And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Simply flouting the law for private profit is hard to tie back to a sense of morality > You disagree with what the government spends tax money on Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal

Rescis 9y ago
>And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. This is rather often criticized however. >Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal Are you conflating Google avoiding taxes as theft? If so, why is there a governmental right to corporate earnings, especially considering tax shelters are using legal loopholes? Further, how is it morally correct for me to donate money to a government that I fundamentally disagree with, as by giving them money I am atleast financially supporting their acts?
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. Larger corporations don't have much choice, they have to do it just to keep from getting run over by politicians.
  - dkural 9y ago
    By "run over", you surely mean getting to serve in the best interest of citizens, who elect those politicians. Instead of doing what's democratically decided, they'd rather legally bribe politicians to get the laws written to benefit their narrow interests. This is the very definition of private interest overriding and buying their way over public good.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      Power corrupts. Politicians are powerful. Large corporations are big targets; everyone wants a piece of that action.
    - xenomachina 9y ago
      > Instead of doing what's democratically decided Did you mean "instead of doing what's decided by competing lobbyists"? I completely agree that lobbying should not exist, but in a system where it does, trying to get by without doing it yourself might be disastrous if you're going up against those who have no such qualms.
chillacy 9y ago
> Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal The fact that people can disagree with that might hint that morality is a bit more complex than absolute.. unless we talk to philosophy departments which like to push absolute morality, which seems to me like a scheme to create never ending debate ;) I could see an argument that robin hood was a moral figure in his time. I could see the morality in a contentious objector who goes to the front line to shoot at the sky, or in Schindler purposefully minting defective rounds, or in the sit-ins and civil disobedience of the 60s. And I can also see morality in protesting an abortion clinic, even though I don't personally agree with those protestors. But this is of course difficult to grapple with at least on a larger level because it can create a lot of chaos when we're all off forcing our own moral choices on others.

Rescis 9y ago

>And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. This is rather often criticized however. >Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal Are you conflating Google avoiding taxes as theft? If so, why is there a governmental right to corporate earnings, especially considering tax shelters are using legal loopholes? Further, how is it morally correct for me to donate money to a government that I fundamentally disagree with, as by giving them money I am atleast financially supporting their acts?

WalterBright 9y ago
> Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. Larger corporations don't have much choice, they have to do it just to keep from getting run over by politicians.
- dkural 9y ago
  By "run over", you surely mean getting to serve in the best interest of citizens, who elect those politicians. Instead of doing what's democratically decided, they'd rather legally bribe politicians to get the laws written to benefit their narrow interests. This is the very definition of private interest overriding and buying their way over public good.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Power corrupts. Politicians are powerful. Large corporations are big targets; everyone wants a piece of that action.
  - xenomachina 9y ago
    > Instead of doing what's democratically decided Did you mean "instead of doing what's decided by competing lobbyists"? I completely agree that lobbying should not exist, but in a system where it does, trying to get by without doing it yourself might be disastrous if you're going up against those who have no such qualms.

chillacy 9y ago

> Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal The fact that people can disagree with that might hint that morality is a bit more complex than absolute.. unless we talk to philosophy departments which like to push absolute morality, which seems to me like a scheme to create never ending debate ;) I could see an argument that robin hood was a moral figure in his time. I could see the morality in a contentious objector who goes to the front line to shoot at the sky, or in Schindler purposefully minting defective rounds, or in the sit-ins and civil disobedience of the 60s. And I can also see morality in protesting an abortion clinic, even though I don't personally agree with those protestors. But this is of course difficult to grapple with at least on a larger level because it can create a lot of chaos when we're all off forcing our own moral choices on others.