4 ms·

You're completely right, of course. But it's still incumbent upon you to make a convincing argument that paying <arbitrary>% tax is unethical. And I'd say you h

You're completely right, of course. But it's still incumbent upon you to make a convincing argument that paying <arbitrary>% tax is unethical. And I'd say you have your work cut out for you. It's much less black-and-white than cases like cheating on a spouse, misleading voters, cutting in line, etc.

jjeaff 8y ago
If I deduct a portion of my rent as a home office deduction and you don't because you either can't or didn't know about it, does that make my actions unethical?
jakelazaroff 8y ago
Yeah, those were all "logical extreme" examples. My issue here isn't determining an appropriate level of taxation so much as OP's "it's legal, so it's ethical" justification. I am open to the idea that Google is still paying an appropriate amount in taxes! Just not by that particular argument.
- manigandham 8y ago
  I didn't make that justification. Following laws is considered ethical though, because laws are the ethics of the society that they apply to. It's fine if you have personal ethics that are different, but that doesn't automatically apply to everyone.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I don't understand. You're saying you didn't make that justification ("it's legal, so it's ethical") immediately followed by that statement, almost verbatim ("following laws is considered ethical"). Of course ethics are subjective. But voicing those ethics is how we arrive at a set of societal values in the first place! It's crazy to suggest that anyone complying with the law should be immune from criticism.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      I did not make the justification but yes that is what society considers ethical as a property of making them laws in the first place. >> It's crazy to suggest that anyone complying with the law should be immune from criticism. Never suggested this. My point was to focus on the root cause if you want to create change, regardless of why.
  - cazum 8y ago
    >laws are the ethics of the society Law is the attempt at legalizing ethical principles. Quite often the laws fall short of the actual ethical consensus of the society due to the fact that the members of the society ultimately have little direct control over what laws get made and how those laws are enforced, for example: federal judges are appointed, not elected. most people aren't able to parse legalese enough to fully grasp the implications of a law they support. laws often get passed by Congress people by virtue of some group with financial interests using their money to influence decisions, etc.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      So the problem is politics... as I originally stated?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    > laws are the ethics of the society That's grossly imprecise. Laws do reflect some of ethical issues that exist in a society but these two are intersecting sets.
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    > Following laws is considered ethical though If you're a deontologist, sure. Very few people are pure deontologists. There are all sorts of cases of cases where people would say the ethical thing to do is to not follow a law. And this doesn't even have to be because the law is "bad" per se; it can just happen that you're in a situation the law's framers did not consider or could not imagine. But quite apart from that, there is a wide swath of things that are _legal_ to do but that one should probably still not do. And that's fine. We don't want to criminalize all behavior we disagree with, even if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it. This idea lies at the center of US First Amendment jurisprudence, for example.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      >> if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law because the government represents the people. Failure to do so means there's a problem with the political system, which is what I said in my original comment.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        This is not how the law works (or should work). For example, cutting in line is not illegal, despite the fact that people almost universally disagree with it. This isn't a failure of our political system: the social pressure to follow the norm works great, and we don't think people deserve to be put in jail for it. Law is a tool to enforce societal norms — but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily the best one.
      - bzbarsky 8y ago
        > If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law That depends. This is why we have things like constitutions and constitutional courts, to prevent certain things from becoming law even if an overwhelming majority thinks they should. Of course if you're talking something like 99% majority, I agree. But even a 70% majority, which would generally be considered overwhekming, may not be enough today, in the US, to enact a constitutional amendment. You seem to consider this a bug. I consider this a feature. But past that, there are things that overwhelming majorities disagree with _doing_ but still don't think should be criminalized. Again, First Amendment jurisprudence is full of examples.

jjeaff 8y ago

If I deduct a portion of my rent as a home office deduction and you don't because you either can't or didn't know about it, does that make my actions unethical?

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Yeah, those were all "logical extreme" examples. My issue here isn't determining an appropriate level of taxation so much as OP's "it's legal, so it's ethical" justification. I am open to the idea that Google is still paying an appropriate amount in taxes! Just not by that particular argument.

manigandham 8y ago
I didn't make that justification. Following laws is considered ethical though, because laws are the ethics of the society that they apply to. It's fine if you have personal ethics that are different, but that doesn't automatically apply to everyone.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I don't understand. You're saying you didn't make that justification ("it's legal, so it's ethical") immediately followed by that statement, almost verbatim ("following laws is considered ethical"). Of course ethics are subjective. But voicing those ethics is how we arrive at a set of societal values in the first place! It's crazy to suggest that anyone complying with the law should be immune from criticism.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    I did not make the justification but yes that is what society considers ethical as a property of making them laws in the first place. >> It's crazy to suggest that anyone complying with the law should be immune from criticism. Never suggested this. My point was to focus on the root cause if you want to create change, regardless of why.
- cazum 8y ago
  >laws are the ethics of the society Law is the attempt at legalizing ethical principles. Quite often the laws fall short of the actual ethical consensus of the society due to the fact that the members of the society ultimately have little direct control over what laws get made and how those laws are enforced, for example: federal judges are appointed, not elected. most people aren't able to parse legalese enough to fully grasp the implications of a law they support. laws often get passed by Congress people by virtue of some group with financial interests using their money to influence decisions, etc.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    So the problem is politics... as I originally stated?
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > laws are the ethics of the society That's grossly imprecise. Laws do reflect some of ethical issues that exist in a society but these two are intersecting sets.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  > Following laws is considered ethical though If you're a deontologist, sure. Very few people are pure deontologists. There are all sorts of cases of cases where people would say the ethical thing to do is to not follow a law. And this doesn't even have to be because the law is "bad" per se; it can just happen that you're in a situation the law's framers did not consider or could not imagine. But quite apart from that, there is a wide swath of things that are _legal_ to do but that one should probably still not do. And that's fine. We don't want to criminalize all behavior we disagree with, even if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it. This idea lies at the center of US First Amendment jurisprudence, for example.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    >> if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law because the government represents the people. Failure to do so means there's a problem with the political system, which is what I said in my original comment.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      This is not how the law works (or should work). For example, cutting in line is not illegal, despite the fact that people almost universally disagree with it. This isn't a failure of our political system: the social pressure to follow the norm works great, and we don't think people deserve to be put in jail for it. Law is a tool to enforce societal norms — but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily the best one.
    - bzbarsky 8y ago
      > If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law That depends. This is why we have things like constitutions and constitutional courts, to prevent certain things from becoming law even if an overwhelming majority thinks they should. Of course if you're talking something like 99% majority, I agree. But even a 70% majority, which would generally be considered overwhekming, may not be enough today, in the US, to enact a constitutional amendment. You seem to consider this a bug. I consider this a feature. But past that, there are things that overwhelming majorities disagree with _doing_ but still don't think should be criminalized. Again, First Amendment jurisprudence is full of examples.