3 ms·

That announcement is really depressing. It isn't saying "airmiles aren't taxable". It says "we promise not to enforce laws about tax on airmiles". As a law a

That announcement is really depressing. It isn't saying "airmiles aren't taxable". It says "we promise not to enforce laws about tax on airmiles". As a law abiding citizen, I now have a moral dilemma. Pay tax as the law says, or don't pay tax because the government promised not to punish me? Where will the latter lead? It's fine to do other crimes as long as you know the government usually won't prosecute? It's fine to write overly broad laws because we will only enforce them against the truly bad guys?

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
It’s not a moral dilemma. You are a just acting like an engineer looking for black and white answers in the face of real-world muddiness.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > It’s not a moral dilemma. Perhaps it wasn't clearly articulated, but I see some moral dilemmas here. 1) Competing goods: obeying the law (civic virtue; collectivism) vs. personal happiness (hedonism; individualism). 2) Competing concepts of civic virtue regarding laws that won't be enforced: Is it better to (a) vigorously oppose such systems, because e.g. they lay the groundwork for tyranny, or (b) accept that some enforcement sloppiness is beneficial for various reasons, and should therefore be accepted?
  - TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree with both of you. On the one hand, you could argue that taking advantage of the IRS deciding not to bother with air miles is wrong. On the other hand, if you decided to include air miles as taxable on your return, you might be obeying the letter of the law. This reminds me of the central plot point of The Good Place, which I won’t spoil here, but will paraphrase indirectly: “at what point (if any) is it acceptable to stop considering the second- and higher-order consequences of our actions or inactions?” I tend to hew toward your 2(b). If even the IRS isn’t going to bother, why would I if it won’t meaningfully matter?

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

It’s not a moral dilemma. You are a just acting like an engineer looking for black and white answers in the face of real-world muddiness.

CoastalCoder 3y ago
> It’s not a moral dilemma. Perhaps it wasn't clearly articulated, but I see some moral dilemmas here. 1) Competing goods: obeying the law (civic virtue; collectivism) vs. personal happiness (hedonism; individualism). 2) Competing concepts of civic virtue regarding laws that won't be enforced: Is it better to (a) vigorously oppose such systems, because e.g. they lay the groundwork for tyranny, or (b) accept that some enforcement sloppiness is beneficial for various reasons, and should therefore be accepted?
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree with both of you. On the one hand, you could argue that taking advantage of the IRS deciding not to bother with air miles is wrong. On the other hand, if you decided to include air miles as taxable on your return, you might be obeying the letter of the law. This reminds me of the central plot point of The Good Place, which I won’t spoil here, but will paraphrase indirectly: “at what point (if any) is it acceptable to stop considering the second- and higher-order consequences of our actions or inactions?” I tend to hew toward your 2(b). If even the IRS isn’t going to bother, why would I if it won’t meaningfully matter?