Moral relativity

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be some confusion. Utilitarianism is not a political system to be implemented. It is a moral theory that only addresses political actions in the sense that moral theories apply to all facets of life. It's proper application to politics is a matter of judgement and, while obviously there is much disagreement, utilitarian political theory has tended to stress minimally intrusive government.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about it this way then there's really no point in mentioning it at all. If there is a "minimally intrusive government" (or none at all) I don't care what the individual people there beleive. If they're minding their own business, why *should* I care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn't care, but I mentioned it because it's a thread about morality and you've been misrepresenting my preferred moral theory.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you on a general level, but I do feel that there are cases of justified killing (even "murder" so to speak, cases which fall outside the scope of self-defense). Clearly we don't want people doing it for the wrong reasons, but who is to say what those reasons are?


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me an example?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really a bad thing to want, but it doesn't really make the collection of taxes immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to make this arguement you're going to have to explain why one group of people (the government) gets to draw a line on a map and gets to use violent force to extort money from those living within this line, and another group (the mafia) isnt allowed to. There is nothing magical about the government that allows those who tag themselves 'government' get to act differently than those that dont have this special tag.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really a bad thing to want, but it doesn't really make the collection of taxes immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to make this arguement you're going to have to explain why one group of people (the government) gets to draw a line on a map and gets to use violent force to extort money from those living within this line, and another group (the mafia) isnt allowed to. There is nothing magical about the government that allows those who tag themselves 'government' get to act differently than those that dont have this special tag.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the very definition of legitimacy that Weber uses in his definition of the state.

EDIT: Weber's definition: "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". The fact that the majority of people choose their "Mafia" makes it legitimate to SOME PEOPLE'S MORALITY.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really a bad thing to want, but it doesn't really make the collection of taxes immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to make this arguement you're going to have to explain why one group of people (the government) gets to draw a line on a map and gets to use violent force to extort money from those living within this line, and another group (the mafia) isnt allowed to. There is nothing magical about the government that allows those who tag themselves 'government' get to act differently than those that dont have this special tag.

[/ QUOTE ]I did qualify it it with intent. The government's intent is not the same as the mafias intent. I'm not saying that the government is magical, unless you consider that most people don't feel wronged by having taxes collected magical.

But yes it is an interesting analogy, governments and mafias. And there are some people that believe the governments intent is as malicious as the mafia. If you believe that, you have a very strong case for me to understand why you feel injured by taxes.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the majority of people choose their "Mafia" makes it legitimate to SOME PEOPLE'S MORALITY.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the core moral theory is that something is moral if enough people agree it is moral. So then it is moral for men to stone prostitutes in the middle east because the majority of people agree with this punishment, but its not moral for us to stone prostitutes because we dont agree with it. This isnt a consistant moral theory.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I did qualify it it with intent. The government's intent is not the same as the mafias intent. I'm not saying that the government is magical, unless you consider that most people don't feel wronged by having taxes collected magical.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is the intent for those who voted the government in to take peoples money and spend it on whatever programs they want. It is a little more complicated since there are many more competing issues in government and the people using the government as a tool of redistribution are raised to view it as acceptable behaviour.

Thats why we need consistant universal moral theories so that we can point people to their actions and say 'hey look this thing your doing over here, its causing a lot of suffering'. Luckily it doesnt take much investigation to see the corruption of government. Once you take government out of abstraction-land and look at how it functions in reality there really isnt any need to have subtle moral theories. The evils of governments are blatantly obvious.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the majority of people choose their "Mafia" makes it legitimate to SOME PEOPLE'S MORALITY.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the core moral theory is that something is moral if enough people agree it is moral. So then it is moral for men to stone prostitutes in the middle east because the majority of people agree with this punishment, but its not moral for us to stone prostitutes because we dont agree with it. This isnt a consistant moral theory.

[/ QUOTE ]No the core moral theory isn't that. It's something else. Moral system are alot of things consistent isn't often one of them. Exceptions are granted for all types of core theories. And there is really no rhyme or reason to it.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did qualify it it with intent. The government's intent is not the same as the mafias intent. I'm not saying that the government is magical, unless you consider that most people don't feel wronged by having taxes collected magical.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is the intent for those who voted the government in to take peoples money and spend it on whatever programs they want. It is a little more complicated since there are many more competing issues in government and the people using the government as a tool of redistribution are raised to view it as acceptable behaviour.

Thats why we need consistant universal moral theories so that we can point people to their actions and say 'hey look this thing your doing over here, its causing a lot of suffering'. Luckily it doesnt take much investigation to see the corruption of government. Once you take government out of abstraction-land and look at how it functions in reality there really isnt any need to have subtle moral theories. The evils of governments are blatantly obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]I generally agree with your post. I'm not sure about the consistency issue. And of course a case can be made that the intent of the government is to take money, and spend it on programs that have societal benefits. People do feel wronged over money wasted. I do see your points, and I agree with your sentiments, just haven't bought into the solutions you have proposed. Or that taxes are a moral issue. It may very well be that the goods and services that government provides can be had cheaper and better thru private industry. If that is the case morality doesn't matter, it's a strong enough argument on it's own.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really a bad thing to want, but it doesn't really make the collection of taxes immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to make this arguement you're going to have to explain why one group of people (the government) gets to draw a line on a map and gets to use violent force to extort money from those living within this line, and another group (the mafia) isnt allowed to. There is nothing magical about the government that allows those who tag themselves 'government' get to act differently than those that dont have this special tag.

[/ QUOTE ]I did qualify it it with intent. The government's intent is not the same as the mafias intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. Not that it matters. Even assuming the more "benign" intents that people think the government might have, the ends does not justify the means.

[ QUOTE ]
most people don't feel wronged by having taxes collected

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence?