4 ms·
> I didn't claim morality was objective, no need to behave as if I did. > it is fundamentally immoral to operate like that. Sounds pretty objectively-stated t
by burke 14y ago
> I didn't claim morality was objective, no need to behave as if I did.
> it is fundamentally immoral to operate like that.
Sounds pretty objectively-stated to me.
Count me in the camp that disagrees with you. Normal people do all sorts of perfectly legal tricks to pay less income tax. They're not cheating; they're just paying the minimum they're legally required to pay. Same deal for business. Whatever they can get away with without breaking any laws is the minimum requirement. Paying extra tax out of some patriotic duty is illogical, as is not taking advantage of the perfectly-legal loopholes found.
It is not up to the businesses to pay more tax than the current legal framework requires; it's up to lawmakers to amend the tax code so that 'undesirable' loopholes are closed.
Businesses act to maximize profits. There is nothing immoral about this.
- Nursie 14y agoBusinesses act to maximize profits. There is nothing immoral about this. I really disagree with this worldview. When business dump toxic byproducts into water supplies, in places where nobody has yet legislated against that, is it not immoral? I agree it's up to the lawmakers to change things, by the way, but I don't agree that it's always the right thing to do for companies to walk as close to the line of illegal behaviour as it's possible to get, just to maximise profit.
- easytiger 14y ago> When business dump toxic byproducts into water supplies, in places where nobody has yet legislated against that, is it not immoral? The morality of it is irrelevant because it is deemed to be an infraction of a law in most places