7 ms·

Lot's of things aren't exactly illegal, yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid bei

by dtech 11y ago

Lot's of things aren't exactly illegal, yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed (Dutch sandwich) My point being, something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. In this case it's mainly strange that the lottery didn't change things when they became aware of the scheme.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
>yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed I see nothing morally wrong with that. I do agree the law has nothing to do with morality, eg. war on drugs, slavery, etc.
- balabaster 11y ago
  > I see nothing morally wrong with that. Exactly - if the loan shark has his legs broken and is robbed of his ill-gotten fortune, how immoral is that?
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    I'd say it's more akin to a theft taking a smaller percentage of your income.
    - balabaster 11y ago
      Who's the thief? The lottery company or the person "robbing" the lottery company? Once you pay over your cash, it belongs to the lottery commission. Your chance of winning is infinitesimal to the point that you may as well spend your money on other things, like paying down your mortgage quicker or paying off your car quicker or whatever other debts you have - either way, the money is gone - unless what you're getting out of it is that period between purchase and draw - the _hope_ of the win, you're likely getting nothing out of your purchase. If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. Either way, I'm not really clear on what your point is... perhaps you can clarify.
      - networked 11y ago
        >If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. It may not be worth the $5 even if it does give you an emotional high — perhaps especially so. I am reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/, which argues that winning the lottery is the wrong sort of hope to invest in, both financially and emotionally. I found that article's argument convincing.
        balabaster 11y ago
        I have a number of thoughts about this article. I don't necessarily disagree with what they're saying but: People are going to fantasize anyway, the fantasy is impeded without any possibility of it being fulfilled... they're probably never going to marry a prince(ss), but some do. The dollar they spend makes the fantasy a possibility. Like the little girl playing dress up and make believing what it would be like before she ever has any real understanding of the reality. People fantasize about all kinds of things every day (most with no direct financial cost, except by what they're not earning while they're busy daydreaming), at the cost of things they probably should be worrying about, but don't. Day dreaming is a means of escaping your existing reality... but if you take no action, then your day dreaming is just that. You need to take action to give any possibility of it ever becoming more than that. In this case, the $5 for the ticket is that step. Perhaps the fantasy is what you live for. Perhaps you spend your life with your head buried in romance novels, who knows, the effect is the same - you paid $5 for the book which gave you a few good hours of day dreaming, or perhaps even a number of days of escape. The lottery ticket gave you a couple of hours escape before you come back to reality. It's just a pleasant way to pass the time. You can tell just how many people have this mindset by the number of copies of Fifty Shades of Grey you saw being read on public transit after it came out.
LordKano 11y ago
Corporations are amoral entities and taxation is an amoral endeavor. It's essentially a very complicated structure of IF/THEN/ELSE conditions. If it's possible to decrease its tax burden while complying with the law, that's what a corporation is supposed to do. It's not cheating to follow the rules. If one doesn't like the outcome, one should seek to change the law.
- nyolfen 11y ago
  pretending that the rules of capitalism are somehow beyond the realm of the human and moral is repugnant
  - Spivak 11y ago
    pretending that any two people could agree on what's "moral" actually means and that crying that something is immoral isn't just a more accepted way of saying "I don't like that".
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Pretending that your definition of morality is the only legitimate one is naive. Is it moral for the mafia to use the threat of force to take a percentage of a business's income? I'd submit that it's not and I suspect that you agree with that.(I'll concede that I don't know you and can't speak for you) Why does that same behavior become moral if/when a government does it? Yet, one of those entities can do it legally.
    - phaemon 11y ago
      I am not a member of the mafia, nor have I used any of their services. I do not owe them any money, therefore it would be wrong for them to demand any money from me. I am a member of a society which has a representative government which acts on its behalf. I have used their services and therefore I owe them money. Therefore, it is legitimate for them to demand that money from me. And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate.

by dtech 11y ago

dylanjermiah 11y ago

>yet still amoral or can cause controversy. E.g. big corporations funneling their profits to other countries to avoid being taxed I see nothing morally wrong with that. I do agree the law has nothing to do with morality, eg. war on drugs, slavery, etc.

balabaster 11y ago
> I see nothing morally wrong with that. Exactly - if the loan shark has his legs broken and is robbed of his ill-gotten fortune, how immoral is that?
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  I'd say it's more akin to a theft taking a smaller percentage of your income.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    Who's the thief? The lottery company or the person "robbing" the lottery company? Once you pay over your cash, it belongs to the lottery commission. Your chance of winning is infinitesimal to the point that you may as well spend your money on other things, like paying down your mortgage quicker or paying off your car quicker or whatever other debts you have - either way, the money is gone - unless what you're getting out of it is that period between purchase and draw - the _hope_ of the win, you're likely getting nothing out of your purchase. If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. Either way, I'm not really clear on what your point is... perhaps you can clarify.
    - networked 11y ago
      >If you're getting your emotional high from playing rather than the hope of winning, then perhaps the $5 is a good purchase, it's hard to say; otherwise, I'd say it's better spent on something the _does_ have a financial or emotional reward. It may not be worth the $5 even if it does give you an emotional high — perhaps especially so. I am reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hl/lotteries_a_waste_of_hope/, which argues that winning the lottery is the wrong sort of hope to invest in, both financially and emotionally. I found that article's argument convincing.
      - balabaster 11y ago
        I have a number of thoughts about this article. I don't necessarily disagree with what they're saying but: People are going to fantasize anyway, the fantasy is impeded without any possibility of it being fulfilled... they're probably never going to marry a prince(ss), but some do. The dollar they spend makes the fantasy a possibility. Like the little girl playing dress up and make believing what it would be like before she ever has any real understanding of the reality. People fantasize about all kinds of things every day (most with no direct financial cost, except by what they're not earning while they're busy daydreaming), at the cost of things they probably should be worrying about, but don't. Day dreaming is a means of escaping your existing reality... but if you take no action, then your day dreaming is just that. You need to take action to give any possibility of it ever becoming more than that. In this case, the $5 for the ticket is that step. Perhaps the fantasy is what you live for. Perhaps you spend your life with your head buried in romance novels, who knows, the effect is the same - you paid $5 for the book which gave you a few good hours of day dreaming, or perhaps even a number of days of escape. The lottery ticket gave you a couple of hours escape before you come back to reality. It's just a pleasant way to pass the time. You can tell just how many people have this mindset by the number of copies of Fifty Shades of Grey you saw being read on public transit after it came out.

LordKano 11y ago

Corporations are amoral entities and taxation is an amoral endeavor. It's essentially a very complicated structure of IF/THEN/ELSE conditions. If it's possible to decrease its tax burden while complying with the law, that's what a corporation is supposed to do. It's not cheating to follow the rules. If one doesn't like the outcome, one should seek to change the law.

nyolfen 11y ago
pretending that the rules of capitalism are somehow beyond the realm of the human and moral is repugnant
- Spivak 11y ago
  pretending that any two people could agree on what's "moral" actually means and that crying that something is immoral isn't just a more accepted way of saying "I don't like that".
- LordKano 11y ago
  Pretending that your definition of morality is the only legitimate one is naive. Is it moral for the mafia to use the threat of force to take a percentage of a business's income? I'd submit that it's not and I suspect that you agree with that.(I'll concede that I don't know you and can't speak for you) Why does that same behavior become moral if/when a government does it? Yet, one of those entities can do it legally.
  - phaemon 11y ago
    I am not a member of the mafia, nor have I used any of their services. I do not owe them any money, therefore it would be wrong for them to demand any money from me. I am a member of a society which has a representative government which acts on its behalf. I have used their services and therefore I owe them money. Therefore, it is legitimate for them to demand that money from me. And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate.