Taxes

[Grey]

Cheapen you thread? :dubious:

No you asked why is was morally ok to not pay taxes you are obligated to pay. I’m using the categorical imperative to show why it would be immoral.

“Act only in accord with a principle which you would at the same time will to be a universal law”

[hauss]

Oh, maybe I was ambiguous on my stance. Not only do I think it’s morally wrong, I know it is wrong to cheat, by definition. I am trying to ask why you wouldn’t do it though… and saying “because it’s morally wrong” isn’t really a reason. It’s a reason, but not a core, pure reason, more like a secondary reason.

Of course you will it for everyone to pay… but, everyone does indeed pay, so that’s not really an issue now is it?

Don’t worry so much about my position… I’m askin’ the questions here!

[Grey]

How is a person’s moral code not a “core, pure reason” not to steal?

You missed the point of the quote too. It has nothing to do with wanting everyone to pay.

[hauss]

*Originally posted by Grey *
**How is a person’s moral code not a “core, pure reason” not to steal?

You missed the point of the quote too. It has nothing to do with wanting everyone to pay. **

1. I was addressing Dangerosa’s post when I mentioned everyone not paying. (So, for the record, I didn’t misunderstand anything.)

2. Here’s a good sample reason why someone wouldn’t steal money from the government: “I don’t cheat on taxes even if I could without getting caught, because I don’t want to have to tell someone if they ask and then they think that I am a crappy person because of it.”

What you are saying is: “I don’t cheat… because it’s immoral.”

Do you see the difference between actual, solid reasoning and what you are saying? Hope so…

Again, dare I ask, why wouldn’t you withhold money in this OP scenario???

[hauss]

Another good sample reason could be: “I don’t want to cheat… because it makes me feel physically and psychologically good to contribute to my country.”

Or: “I don’t cheat… because I believe that $2,000 or so will do some good in the US’s hands; they know better than I where to put that money to promote public well-being. That money could possibly provide books to an inner city school.”

Or: “I don’t cheat… because I have a religious conviction; I believe God will frown upon me if I do it and I will let my God down and might even be punished.”

I choose that last one personally…

[Grey]

Yes, well God aside and all, this is what I meant by the categorical imperitive. (bolding is mine)

In Kant’s view immorality occurs when the categorical imperative is not followed: when a person attempts to set a different standard for themselves then for the rest of humanity. In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, once Kant has derived his categorical imperative he applies it to a number of examples. The second example and probably the most analysed is that of an unfaithful promise. Kant applies his imperative to a person who is short of money who intends to ask for a loan, promising to repay it, but with no intention of doing so. When Kant applies the categorical imperative to this situation he discovers that it leads to a contradiction, for if breaking promises were to become universal then no person would ever agree to a promise and promises would disappear. Kant connects rationality with morality, and sees contradictory behaviour as immoral.

[ITR_champion]

*Originally posted by Czarcasm *
**I would still pay my taxes, because I consider the question the same as asking,“Would you steal if there was no chance whatsoever of getting caught?” **

That’s pretty much my response as well. However, I would be willing to cheat on taxes if I needed money for some necessity such as food or health care, but that doesn’t seem likely to happen at any point in the near future.

[hauss]

*Originally posted by Grey *
**Yes, well God aside and all, this is what I meant by the categorical imperitive. (bolding is mine) **

Well, when neither party is hurt, and one party (you) are helped extensively by the withholding of your tax (able to take a vacation or offer piano lessons to your daughter), utilitarianly speaking, it’s not so “immoral” then is it?

Breaking a promise (lying) and inflicting harm (taking money without compensating the lender) on another being is far worse than stealing a penny ($2,000 in tax) from Bill Gate’s (U.S. government’s) piggy bank.

I think that the example in that quote was off base here, Grey. Care to use your own words to explain why you wouldn’t cheat? It’s not that hard to simply say in your own words, in a sentence or two, why you would or would not do something… :rolleyes:

[hauss]

*Originally posted by ITR champion *
**That’s pretty much my response as well. However, I would be willing to cheat on taxes if I needed money for some necessity such as food or health care, but that doesn’t seem likely to happen at any point in the near future. **

So, he/she made a connection of how my question is the same as another question, and that’s an answer to my question?

Whatever happened to making clear, concise, logical statements to back up your position or decision on a topic?

[Grey]

*Originally posted by hauss *
**Well, when neither party is hurt, and one party (you) are helped extensively by the withholding of your tax (able to take a vacation or offer piano lessons to your daughter), utilitarianly speaking, it’s not so “immoral” then is it?

Breaking a promise (lying) and inflicting harm (taking money without compensating the lender) on another being is far worse than stealing a penny ($2,000 in tax) from Bill Gate’s (U.S. government’s) piggy bank.

I think that the example in that quote was off base here, Grey. Care to use your own words to explain why you wouldn’t cheat? It’s not that hard to simply say in your own words, in a sentence or two, why you would or would not do something… :rolleyes: **

Keep you rolleyes to yourself poseur. If you really want to debate act based utilitarianism go to GD.

Since I’m up here’s how I try to consider things

1. Act only in a way that you would want others to act
2. Treat others and myself as ends not a means

So here I am considering stealing from my government with no one knowing it was me. Now if I elect to steal the money I have to consider that others in the same position could do the same. I would not want that. So that fails the first criteria. Now I must also consider that the money stolen would be used by my fellow citizens and depriving them of it treats them as a means. That fails criteria number two.

[Czarcasm]

*Originally posted by hauss *
**So, he/she made a connection of how my question is the same as another question, and that’s an answer to my question?

Whatever happened to making clear, concise, logical statements to back up your position or decision on a topic? **

Whatever happened to giving your own opinion in a poll and letting others do the same? This isn’t GD or the BBQ Pit, so rein it in, o.k.?