Talus said:

sorry to be picky, but this is not really an ethical question.

Mach said:

okay ... been thinking

yeah, these are all loaded damn if ya do damn if ya dont questions ...

and 50 words ? Hmmmm
i'll take this one for 5,000 monty

6. Should the wealthier members of society be forced to pay through taxation, for the poorer members? If so, how much?

NO they should not be forced to
thats my answer

TheFrog said:

I think the ethics comes in through the question of "force" no? Should people be forced to help others? But isn't that redundant since taxes are essentially "forced" in this sense anyway?

Or am I missing your point?

Talus said:

well as soon as i saw this question, i saw it as economic & political / socio-political, particularly because of the emphasis on the state in the way the question's phrased.

i think it would make more sense as an ethical problem if it focussed on either the rich or the poor. Like, 'Should a rich person accept that, due to their higher wealth, they should pay a higher percentage of tax than a poorer person, when the sums raised through taxation will be spent on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all citizens (rich and poor)?' And should a poor person also accept that? Acceptance as ethically proper, that is.

their/they to avoid he/she boredom.

I agree it's a weirdly worded question and I'm not sure if it's deliberately worded so. I chose that one because it looked simple. lol

Is it accurate to see taxes as paying "for" something or someone? I can see why people would resent that. But poor people pay taxes too and no one says that they are paying "for" the rich people.

Or is it more proper to say that taxes are paid as a cost for particpating in a society that has allowed you to flourish? In other words you're giving back something in acknowledgement that you have received. And the amount you pay should be based on the degree to which you have benefitted?

It's a toughy.

Talus said:

Here's an interesting quotation I came across that I think applies to number 5.



Also, by handing over the black prisoner the sherrif may very well be more interested in protecting the lives of white rioters who have put themselves in this situation anyway.

But even assuming the sherrif didn't have such latent base motives, it doesn't make sense to try to calculate how many lives would be lost in such a way. Couldn't you argue that more black lives would be in jeapordy if the sherrif (the figure of authority) had no ethical stamina at all and turned the prisoner over to the crowd? It would empower the mob. And, as King suggests, a little order would be gained for the loss of a LOT of justice.

Talus said:

Hmm.

I think as a matter of fact, it's hard not to see a large proportion of tax as going towards a pool of money which is shared between all. That is to say, tax is, in this day and age, largely redistributive. certainly historically, i think the argument that tax is the price you pay for participating in the society holds more water. some of that may remain, but i think there's definitely an emphasis on redistribution. which, economic policy aside, is why right-wing thinkers (anti-redistribution in broad terms) turn up their noses at tax, and left-wing thinkers do the opposite. (I'm generalising, obviously).

what do you think? I know in England, in relation to taxation post-Norman conquest, this idea that it was in part a participation levy seems to reflect the way it worked.

Talus said:

Nope, not fair or right at all, but happens all the time. Especially where celebrities (and the high society uberrich) and their fat bank accounts and bigshot lawyers are concerened.

KaleidoscopeEyes said:

so they're both fined $10,000.

that's fair, right?

poor man can't pay - goes to jail anyway.

so what's the answer? you think the rich person should pay more on conviction because he has more money? isn't that just penalising the rich?

KaleidoscopeEyes said:

I tend to agree with you here, KE (sorry Frog, I'm still thinking through an answer to you. lol); but I have a hard time thinking what a fair penalty would be.. Are you suggesting that the rich person should automatically go to jail for a year? That monetary penalties and incarceration should not be considered interchangeable?

I agree it seems unfair.

TheFrog said:

Damn, I just deleted a portion of my last post that responded to exactly that point!

I don't think that's penalizing the rich. If you see the 10,000 dollars as a year's pay for the poor man, then maybe THAT is the penalty: a year's pay. Thus the rich man should pay that, no?

Or would that hurt the rich man out of all proportion to the crime?

TheFrog said:

I'm not well-versed in law but are ALL people, arrested for the same crime, offered the exact same options: fine and/or jail time? Is that something up to a judge to determine (or whoever), or is that a hard and fast thing that's already pre-determined and the person arrested just automatically gets offered a choice? Because if a poor man doesn't even get offered the choice of a fine and just gets tossed in the slammer for something, but a fatcat with load of cash and lots of good lawyers at his disposal to grease various wheels gets off with a fine that is of NO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP to him whatsoever, how are those two scenarios fair?

I guess I am thinking of a case in my hometown of this sorority girl who, it was discovered, had a baby and threw it away and the city had to put out a lot of money to dig through the city dump and find this poor little child. This case was big, big news in my town until the mother/perpitrator was discovered and then suddenly, because of her rich daddy, the case discreetly disappeared from the media and nothing ever happened to this girl (I worked at a TV station so I was aware of what was going on..)

Now, if some lesser-priveleged person had commited that same crime - abandoning and throwing away a little baby - they would've had to pay a price, no question. But because this rich girl had a rich, well-connected daddy, she maybe had to go to a counselor or something for awhile and that's all. No true punishment. Not fair.

The rich ARE treated differently and often "better" (or maybe I should say, things are "easier" on them) than their less priveleged counterparts. But that's just how things are in life & in society.

TheFrog said:

I guess taxes in any form are a kind of redistribution of wealth, which is why the flat tax is often championed by the rich. It's kind of like ethical dilemma question #4 above: one penalty for one crime, with the rich benefitting. But if it's patently unfair in this situation wouldn't it be unfair in the sense of a flat tax as well?

But I am also sympathetic to the arguments against a progressive tax, which can impede competition and the free market etc etc, though I think those claims are largely overstated.

So ummm...yeah.




smite the edit
[Edited 4/24/05 15:01pm]

Talus said:

i think you probably have to distinguish between criminal and civil penalties. If you're sued by someone, then your finances should, and do, come into it. Criminally, if you commit a crime, the penalty has to be the same for a rich person and a poor person. i think that's just a hard line you have to take. When it comes to citizenship, there are lines you don't cross which the state have laid down. When you do cross those lines, you are punished as a citizen, for breaching the contract between citizen and state. Wealth shouldn't be a factor.

I think.

TheFrog said:

Let's add MJ to the mix!

These are only dilemmas to the morally
corupt.

Use common sense and the wisdom of the bible to breeze thru these.

origmnd said:

well, okay then.

So we're all looking forward to giving us the results of you breezing thru' them.

origmnd said:

Well, however you do it, it's gotta be 50 words or more!

You still owe me 29!

Talus said:

1. save your own then try to help others
2. keep it
3. no act/ result justifies killing
4. poor person should've been aware of the consequences of a person in his position
5. no sheriiff shouldnt deliver the person. let the mob suffer from their
own actions--he should alert the people of the town al least


that should suffice

origmnd said:

you'd keep Gates' money?

how is that not theft?

You go to an ATM and the machine gives you $300 when you'd only withdrawn $30.

You keep that money? It's theft.

TheFrogSpawn said:

theft is taking money not recieving money

origmnd said:

you are taking money!

you don't have to put a gun to the bank manager's head and demand he give you money for it to be theft.

Ethics is about behaving according to your expectations of others.

Those 10 words apply to all of the situations given.


A few more words:

We might LIKE it if people would go above and beyond (ie. save our family instead of their own), but we don't EXPECT that. We expect that people will save their own families.

We expect people to return our wallets, not to steal from us, not to let us starve if they have enough extra to feed us. . . we don't expect superhuman behavior. We expect a reasonable level of social decency. Having some shared sense of what that means, as a society, is what allows us to rely on ethics to the extent that we do.

1. You are on a country road and see two neighbouring farm houses on fire. One is yours and the other belongs to a new couple who just moved in. Your wife and child are at home as are your neighbours. You can only save one house. Which one do you save?

I would be surprised if ANYONE would say they'd save the other house before they'd save their own family. if I got my family out alright, then ALL of us would go & do the best we could for the new neighbors.



2. You discover Bill Gate's wallet lying on the street. It contains $1000.00 Do you send it back to him?

OF COURSE. it's NOT the amount, it's NOT the person.. it's the PRINCIPLE.
if Bill Gates found my wallet - whether it had $5 or $50,000 in it - I would expect him to send it back to me because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO.



3.In Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment, the main character plots and carries out the murder of an old woman who has a considerable amount of money in her apartment. After killing her, he steals the money. He argues that 1) she is a malicious old woman, petty, cantankerous and scheming, useless to herself and to society (which happens to be true), and her life causes no happiness to herself or to others; and 2) her money if found after her death would only fall into the hands of chisellers anyway. Whereas he would use it for his education. Is this action justified?

NO. in my value system, there is virtually NO JUSTIFICATION for killing someone.



4. A rich man and a poor man commit the same type of crime. The rich man is fined $10,000 while the poor man is sent to jail for one year. Is this fair?

of course it's not fair - but, this is typically "life in the US"
(money talks, bullshit walks)



5. The sheriff in a southern town is guarding the courthouse against a mob that is about to storm it by force, in order to capture a black prisoner and lynch him even before his trial. If the mob is frustrated, many people may be killed in the ensuing riot. Should the sheriff deliver the prisoner to the mob?

well, despite the fact that back in the "good old days" of segregation in the US, this type of craziness happened enough times.. it would be WRONG for the sheriff to "deliver" the prisoner (like he was a pizza from Dominoes or something) to the mob. in the legal system, isn't there something called..
"presumed innocent until proven guilty"??
I understand that a "mob mentality" can exist, but that does not mean that it should be catered to against doing the right thing.
PLUS, you said that "many people MAY be killed in the ensuing riot"..
in the progression of "modal verbs of probability", "may" is on the WEAK end of probability.



6. Should the wealthier members of society be forced to pay through taxation, for the poorer members? If so, how much?

I'm a little "torn" on this 1.. but if it's set up that every member of society is supposed to pay a certain established rate of tax, then I don't quite see why wealthier tax payers should pay more, even if some of them "get over" by hiding their money or cheating on their taxes or whatever..

I'm a firm believer in that whatever a person does - good or bad - comes back on them..



this was a rather interesting thread, I think Sinister would appreciate this thread..