Is self-interest on taxes moral?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

I echo this question from a strictly curious standpoint.

Insofar as your loved ones tend to come prevalently from a specific social group with its own set of interests distinct from that of society as a whole, yes.

[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.

It is very possible for something to be right or wrong in such a circumstance if one believes a person or thing can have inherent value. 

Does a person only have value if they consider themselves as having such?

Of course not, human beings are inherently valuable.

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to my point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If a person is inherently valuable, then they have a duty to themselves to act accordingly, such as not to harm or destroy themselves without good reason. That is a moral issue which exists regardless of the presence of others.

You're right, that's a very good point. I am not entirely sure if I would say that people have a moral duty to care for themselves per se, but I do believe that people have a duty to care for one another whether others want their care or not, and conversely, if by neglecting themselves a person ends up failing in their duty toward others, then they have a duty to take care of themselves.

What I'm not sure is whether, if there was only a single person on Earth, the very idea of morality would make any sense, or whether whatever that person wanted would be inherently "moral". I'd have to give it more thought, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile, since this is such a convoluted scenario.