Is self-interest on taxes moral?

[ssuperflash]

Especially if you're middle class?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Self-interest in maintaining your own property is pretty clearly moral, supposing the means themselves are not immoral.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Self-interest as a motivation for anything is inherently immoral.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Self-interest as a motivation for anything is inherently immoral.

Could it be amoral?

ADDENDUM: I don't have particularly much interest in this topic, but do you believe self-preservation is inherently immoral? (And, if we must bring this back to taxes, surely there are points where one is driven beyond their ability to survive--at least with some modicum of comfort--wing to confiscatory taxation; take the situation in Russia under both Tsarism and crash industrialization)

[Murica!]

Self-interest as a motivation for anything is inherently immoral.

The lack of self awareness is truly stunning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Self-interest as a motivation for anything is inherently immoral.

Could it be amoral?

ADDENDUM: I don't have particularly much interest in this topic, but do you believe self-preservation is inherently immoral? (And, if we must bring this back to taxes, surely there are points where one is driven beyond their ability to survive--at least with some modicum of comfort--wing to confiscatory taxation; take the situation in Russia under both Tsarism and crash industrialization)

Yeah, amoral is probably a better word for it. My point is that any action must be rooted in a principle that reaches beyond self-interest in order to be considered moral. It's possible that self-interest might lead fortuitously lead one to act morally in a given circumstance, but that doesn't mean self-interest is a legitimate rationale.

Self-interest as a motivation for anything is inherently immoral.

The lack of self awareness is truly stunning.

I didn't say anything about myself.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

Perhaps needless to say, I would differ by some degree, considering it foremost among the duties of a living creature to fend for itself. This has caveats of course (and runs the risk of some libertarian misinterpretation), but I am speaking from outside of the many real-life situations of scarcity wherein self-sacrifice might be paramount to collective survival.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

I don't see how that's a relevant question. Self-defense and other activity can be easily justified on the basis of a universal right to life.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

I don't see how that's a relevant question. Self-defense and other activity can be easily justified on the basis of a universal right to life.

Hm. I contemplated self-preservation as perhaps the most immediate act of self-interest. You are framing self-preservation (or in this case stated "self defense"), it is moral for the act of defense, having little to do with it be oneself or someone else. Hm.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

I don't see how that's a relevant question. Self-defense and other activity can be easily justified on the basis of a universal right to life.

Hm. I contemplated self-preservation as perhaps the most immediate act of self-interest. You are framing self-preservation (or in this case stated "self defense"), it is moral for the act of defense, having little to do with it be oneself or someone else. Hm.

Exactly.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

I don't see how that's a relevant question. Self-defense and other activity can be easily justified on the basis of a universal right to life.

Hm. I contemplated self-preservation as perhaps the most immediate act of self-interest. You are framing self-preservation (or in this case stated "self defense"), it is moral for the act of defense, having little to do with it be oneself or someone else. Hm.

Exactly.

And I thought I'd become collectivist recently.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

I don't see how that's a relevant question. Self-defense and other activity can be easily justified on the basis of a universal right to life.

Hm. I contemplated self-preservation as perhaps the most immediate act of self-interest. You are framing self-preservation (or in this case stated "self defense"), it is moral for the act of defense, having little to do with it be oneself or someone else. Hm.

Exactly.

And I thought I'd become collectivist recently.

I mean when discussing morality, how is it even possible not to be collectivist? Morality only makes sense with reference to a collective. If I'm the only person in the universe (or if I somehow manage to never have any interaction with anyone of any kind) then nothing can be right or wrong.

[Santander]

Low self-esteem should not be confused with humility or morality.

[Kingpoleon]

Do you similarly consider self defense and related activities to lack a moral character?

I don't see how that's a relevant question. Self-defense and other activity can be easily justified on the basis of a universal right to life.

Hm. I contemplated self-preservation as perhaps the most immediate act of self-interest. You are framing self-preservation (or in this case stated "self defense"), it is moral for the act of defense, having little to do with it be oneself or someone else. Hm.

Exactly.

And I thought I'd become collectivist recently.

I mean when discussing morality, how is it even possible not to be collectivist? Morality only makes sense with reference to a collective. If I'm the only person in the universe (or if I somehow manage to never have any interaction with anyone of any kind) then nothing can be right or wrong.

I must argue that morality is relative between individuals, rather than individual or collective.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Low self-esteem should not be confused with humility or morality.

I imagine you wouldn't know about any of these things.

[Mopsus]

Self-interest as a motivation for anything is inherently immoral.

What kind of world would we live in, if the system of incentives and deterrents ordained by Providence itself, couldn't be trusted to guide one's choices?

[Bismarck]

Yes, from an individualistic viewpoint everyone has a right to keep money if they have earned it fairly and honestly. From a collective viewpoint, if you intend to help others with your taxes presumably you can help others with the money you save in a way of your choosing that is more efficient than the government.

[angus]

The relationship between morality and self-interest has long been discussed in philosophy, going back to Plato.  Hobbes, Kant, Aristotle, Hume, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Yang Zhu all had strong opinions on the subject as well, although they do not always agree.  Nowadays, it's called "ethical egoism" and  it's justification goes something like this:

"Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs.  Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs effectively.  At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be our brother's keeper we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."

That's a quote from James Rachels, a 20th century philosopher who specialized in ethics.

I suppose that all this could be applied to taxes as well, although it must be borne in mind that taxes are one of the only two sure things in the universe.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs.  Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs effectively.  At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be our brother's keeper we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."

That's a quote from James Rachels, a 20th century philosopher who specialized in ethics.

Cute way to sweep under the rug any discussion of the real evil that people do for their own gain.

[RINO Tom]

Is voting the way that will most positively affect your loved ones considered to be "self-interest"?

[Mopsus]

"Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs.  Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs effectively.  At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be our brother's keeper we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."

That's a quote from James Rachels, a 20th century philosopher who specialized in ethics.

Cute way to sweep under the rug any discussion of the real evil that people do for their own gain.

But what do people really gain when they do evil? (that's what my first post in this thread was driving at)

[angus]

"Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs.  Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs effectively.  At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be our brother's keeper we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."

That's a quote from James Rachels, a 20th century philosopher who specialized in ethics.

Cute way to sweep under the rug any discussion of the real evil that people do for their own gain.

I don't think that's what Rachels was trying to do.  In any case his argument seems particularly apt here.  (I had not read anything about evil into the original question, and in fact I'm not quite convinced that it exists, but I suppose you're free to interpret it in any way that you like.)

FWIW, Rachels gathers arguments for and against ethical egoism.  See, for example:

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_to_Philosophy_Sp_06/Rachels_Ch_6_Ethical_Egoism.htm

Then he leaves us with the intriguing question "What moral theory should an ethical egoist advocate publicly? Would it be ethical egoism?"  

In The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he goes on to compare ethical egoism to speciesism, racism, and sexism as a moral philosophy.  It's an interesting read and I think it touches on the OP in a big way.  What it does not do is sweep any discussions under any rugs.

[Mercenary]

I think it depends on the extent. I do not think limited self intest is immoral but greed certainly is.
If you are having a tough time supporting tax cuts that would benefit you doesnt really seem immoral to me just as supporting increased spending on education if youre a student or anti poverty programs if youre poor. But after a point that your benefit is more abouy extra luxury rather than just helping you out when youre having a hard time at the expense of others then I think it begins crossing into the realm of greed.

Oh and it can be more complicated. What if you feel government does a poor job and would rather use your tax money to directly help others? I do not see how anyone coulf say that is immoral. I would like yo save more on taxes and use it for my local animal shelter (no kill) or helping poor kids. Certainly prefer that to more bombs.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh and it can be more complicated. What if you feel government does a poor job and would rather use your tax money to directly help others? I do not see how anyone coulf say that is immoral.

Because the right to decide how the common good is best served belongs to all the people, and letting the rich usurp this right and make these decisions themselves would be an affront to democratic principles.

[Mercenary]

Oh and it can be more complicated. What if you feel government does a poor job and would rather use your tax money to directly help others? I do not see how anyone coulf say that is immoral.

Because the right to decide how the common good is best served belongs to all the people, and letting the rich usurp this right and make these decisions themselves would be an affront to democratic principles.

But that is not the question. It is whether it is immoral to desire lower taxation so that you can use said money for causes you believe in. On the flip side is it moral to desire more taxes on someone when that increased taxation may just go to pay for more military spending when they would have otherwise used it to fund an oephanage? I am not arguing against taxation. I am just saying it is not necessarily immoral to seek lower taxation since there could be many reasons why one does.