RE: Tax Avoidance: Moral or Not?
November 17, 2016 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 2:52 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
I also think that it's actions themselves that are immoral or moral. But I think it only applies to actions that are definably avoidable.
I think exploiting loopholes is not definably avoidable because the whole concept of loophole exploitation is about almost breaking rules... and so if exploiting a loophole is avoided then the new loophole simply becomes almost exploiting it, and if that's avoided then the new loophole becomes almost almost exploiting it, and so on. The concept of loophole exploitation collapses into an infinite regress. If we deem immoral those who exploit, then the new exploiters become those who almost exploit and the former simply become rule breakers. This infinite regress logically goes on to the point of where people are barely exploiting anything and we don't know where to draw the line to define when an action is exploitative or not. Barely exploiting is still exploiting but if there are no clear lines to be drawn then this is indeed a case where "ought to avoid" implying "knowingly able to avoid" fails to apply. It gets to the point where there's no clear line between skillful behavior and exploitative behavior so even truly moral and decent people's only way to know for sure that they're not exploiting is to intentionally be perhaps over-moderate and not even take what they are entitled to.
I've always seen it this way, lol. I need lines.
I think exploiting loopholes is not definably avoidable because the whole concept of loophole exploitation is about almost breaking rules... and so if exploiting a loophole is avoided then the new loophole simply becomes almost exploiting it, and if that's avoided then the new loophole becomes almost almost exploiting it, and so on. The concept of loophole exploitation collapses into an infinite regress. If we deem immoral those who exploit, then the new exploiters become those who almost exploit and the former simply become rule breakers. This infinite regress logically goes on to the point of where people are barely exploiting anything and we don't know where to draw the line to define when an action is exploitative or not. Barely exploiting is still exploiting but if there are no clear lines to be drawn then this is indeed a case where "ought to avoid" implying "knowingly able to avoid" fails to apply. It gets to the point where there's no clear line between skillful behavior and exploitative behavior so even truly moral and decent people's only way to know for sure that they're not exploiting is to intentionally be perhaps over-moderate and not even take what they are entitled to.
I've always seen it this way, lol. I need lines.
