Agency & Humanity & Morality

[Libertad]

Whisper and I began to get into a debate about government funds and charity on the "What alignment are you?" topic, and I decided to make a new thread here.

Note: Normally I'd consider this a Mature Topic, but Whisper does not have 50 posts yet.  I don't want to cut him out of the conversation.

It appears, in particular, to lack any notion of the concepts of "agency" and "humanity" with respect to moral imperatives

Could you elaborate on this?

"Agency" is the quality of a sentient being whereby they are able to make choices regarding what to do, and then held responsible of the outcomes of those choices.

"Humanity" is the quality of a sentient being whereby their own experience is a worthwhile end unto itself, not just as a means of serving others.


An instance that self-sacrifice is a moral imperative denies both these principles. Let me give you some examples:

If I ask you to sacrifice your life to save a busload of children from going off a bridge, that is a valid request. You can choose to, or choose not to. But if I insist that you have a moral obligation to do so, I am denying your humanity. Your existence is useful because it is useful to you, not because it might save some children.

If the state taxes the population to support unwed mothers, it is denying the agency of those mothers. They have the right to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they are protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions, then they are infantilized, denied not only freedom of choice, but the opportunity to be self-reliant and learn from their mistakes.

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

To help others always is to deny them the opportunity to grow into full adults and become strong and confident. To insist that others always give is deny them the opportunity to enjoy their own lives, and to tell them that their internal reality is less important than that of those we expect them to give to.

Using tax dollars to support society's disenfranchised is not inherently a bad thing, and some people do need help to get back on their feet.  Whether it's from a private charity or government matters little.  Soup kitchens do works of good everyday, even if they're always "giving" to others.

You seem to be responding to one of my examples. Let's look at each of your arguments individually.

Using tax dollars to support society's disenfranchised is not inherently a bad thing

Okay, this is your thesis statement, let's look at your reasons for believing this. But first let's analyze just what it means to "use tax dollar to support" someone.

It means to take resources from one person, by threat of force, and give them to another. We must recall that tax money is not an infinite pool of free-floating wealth that belongs to no one. It is instead taken from people who will be imprisoned by men with guns if they do not give, and the amount that is taken is decided based on expenditures like giving it to other people. Every dollar given to one person is a dollar which is taken from another.

Now, perhaps it is sometimes moral to do precisely this. But in order to argue that such an action is moral, we must show two things: first, that it is moral to give resources to the one party (or else we deny their agency), and second, that it is moral to take them from the other (or else we deny their humanity).

some people do need help to get back on their feet

Indeed. This explains why it might be moral to give resources. The agency of the recipient must be considered in the light of their power to effect their situation. A person with no power to effect their situation does not have their agency reduced by an offer of assistance, if their situation is also not a consequence of their own poor choices.

But it does not explain why it is moral to take them by force. It gives no justification for denying the humanity of the people whose resources we are taking.

Soup kitchens do works of good everyday, even if they're always "giving" to others.

Okay.

But this is not a supporting statement. It's just another assertion.

So the only justifying argument you have made is that "some people need it". Perhaps you could explain to me why a need in one entity creates an obligation in another?

Here's my response to some of Whisper's points:

My soup kitchen analogy was probably not the best example, as charities are voluntary while taxes are mandatory.  Whisper's point is that taxes are inherently coercive due to this.  I agree with him on this point.

Many people are uncomfortable with their taxes being spent on programs they despise, such as birth control or the military.

But taxes are a necessary evil.  The allocation of funds and resources towards vital programs is such a convoluted and complicated procedure that only a few people can really understand it, and managing these resources is a full-time job.  If all government programs were voluntary, then people would give money based upon what they decide is important or on programs that they approve.  And many people would not pay taxes at all!  Can the average person adequately manage the budget of the military, or social security, or any of the other massive programs?  Training to understand the intricacies of the IRS, or most government tax agencies, is something that most American citizens do not have the time or money to learn.

Additionally, the use of taxes is not one-sided; in theory, the citizens of a nation give taxes to their government, and the government uses these taxes to protect its citizens and help them in times of need.  Assuming that the resources created by taxes are wisely handled, both parties prosper.  In practice, many governments take taxes and oppress the populace, or misuse tax dollars on their own selfish needs.  In such situations, the government has violated the social contract promised to the citizens.  This is the reason I believe that using tax dollars to help others is not inherently a bad thing.

[X-Codes]

Taxes are not a necessary evil, they are simply the way that society has agreed to pay for our vital institutions; primarily the military and the police.  From that singular goal, it was quickly discovered that you can do a lot of large-scale things relatively efficiently with the government, which not only provided a service to everyone, but made the Government better at it's first job of protecting the population at-large; which includes things like roads, schools, fire departments, and hospitals.

The apparent norm of tax dollars being misused is also not a reason to brand taxes as evil.  Gun control opponents, who I would like to point out are also often in favor of paying as little in taxes as is possible for this very reason, will quite readily tell you that guns don't kill people, people kill people.  If that's really the case, then you need better people handling the tax money, you don't need to get rid of it altogether.

[Libertad]

The apparent norm of tax dollars being misused is also not a reason to brand taxes as evil.  Gun control opponents, who I would like to point out are also often in favor of paying as little in taxes as is possible for this very reason, will quite readily tell you that guns don't kill people, people kill people.  If that's really the case, then you need better people handling the tax money, you don't need to get rid of it altogether.

Gun control opponents hate taxes because it's the government telling them what they can and can't do with their belongings.  They may not like to admit it, but some aspects of the American far-right draw upon anarchist thought.

I said taxes are a "necessary evil" because the government sometimes uses it for bad and incompetent ends.  I'm not fond of the idea of US tax dollars funding abstinence-only education, but I have to pay them all the same.  A lot of tax dollars go to useful social functions like hospitals and schools.  Some of it may go to programs I don't like, but that's inevitable in any system of government.

[bhu]

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

Morality and ethics don't exist.  They're bullshit artificial concepts created by humanity to justify what they do to one another and assuage feelings of guilt.  People make claims of morality for no other reason than to make themselves look better in the opinion of others while simultaneously attempting the opposite for their opponent.  Human beings are inherently selfish, not good or evil.  You can brainwash them to be otherwise, which society does to ensure it's own continued existence, but that doesn't make good and evil a reality, it just makes it a shared delusion among one species. 

[veekie]

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

Morality and ethics don't exist.  They're bullshit artificial concepts created by humanity to justify what they do to one another and assuage feelings of guilt.  People make claims of morality for no other reason than to make themselves look better in the opinion of others while simultaneously attempting the opposite for their opponent.  Human beings are inherently selfish, not good or evil.  You can brainwash them to be otherwise, which society does to ensure it's own continued existence, but that doesn't make good and evil a reality, it just makes it a shared delusion among one species. 

Psychologically speaking its a way to make social interaction work out, we're programmed to be accepting of codes of belief(regardless of sensibility) and to have loyalty to others who share the belief. The brain doesn't care if its logical, people working together are often more effective than people who don't(if only because resources can be leveraged more potently when coordinated), which trumps the more subtle effects of adhering to any given code.

[RobbyPants]

If the state taxes the population to support unwed mothers, it is denying the agency of those mothers. They have the right to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they are protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions, then they are infantilized, denied not only freedom of choice, but the opportunity to be self-reliant and learn from their mistakes.

That's a bit of an over-simplification. It's not like the tax-based programs are completely absolving them of any consequences; just some of the consequences. It's softening the blow, for sure, but they're still living with having a kid, a lot less freedom than they otherwise would have had, and a lot less free money.

You could argue that you're denying someone today agency because of mistakes they made when they were 15 years old.

[kurashu]

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

Morality and ethics don't exist.  They're bullshit artificial concepts created by humanity to justify what they do to one another and assuage feelings of guilt.  People make claims of morality for no other reason than to make themselves look better in the opinion of others while simultaneously attempting the opposite for their opponent.  Human beings are inherently selfish, not good or evil.  You can brainwash them to be otherwise, which society does to ensure it's own continued existence, but that doesn't make good and evil a reality, it just makes it a shared delusion among one species.

Have you ever tried explaining nihilism to someone who just refuses to look pass his own nose?

[Agita]

If the state taxes the population to support unwed mothers, it is denying the agency of those mothers. They have the right to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they are protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions, then they are infantilized, denied not only freedom of choice, but the opportunity to be self-reliant and learn from their mistakes.

That's a bit of an over-simplification. It's not like the tax-based programs are completely absolving them of any consequences; just some of the consequences. It's softening the blow, for sure, but they're still living with having a kid, a lot less freedom than they otherwise would have had, and a lot less free money.

You could argue that you're denying someone today agency because of mistakes they made when they were 15 years old.

For a less loaded but still similar analogy: Let's say someone put their hand on something very hot and got burned badly. They should've known better, and it's their own fault. Is it denying them "agency" to give them an unguent or something (assuming you happen to have one and they don't) and call the ambulance if necessary? No, it's not. The mistake was made already, and they've felt the consequences already, so there's no point in further telling them to tough it out.
Returning to the single mothers example, support for single mothers does not suddenly magically remove all consequences of their "mistake", assuming they made one. It does not mean they won't realize that they made one, nor that they will think "Oh hey, it doesn't matter if I get knocked up, I'll get help anyway!". Robby very correctly pointed out that even if they get support, they're still raising a child, which is a responsibility they most likely didn't plan for.

[bhu]

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

Morality and ethics don't exist.  They're bullshit artificial concepts created by humanity to justify what they do to one another and assuage feelings of guilt.  People make claims of morality for no other reason than to make themselves look better in the opinion of others while simultaneously attempting the opposite for their opponent.  Human beings are inherently selfish, not good or evil.  You can brainwash them to be otherwise, which society does to ensure it's own continued existence, but that doesn't make good and evil a reality, it just makes it a shared delusion among one species.

Have you ever tried explaining nihilism to someone who just refuses to look pass his own nose?

I live in Ohio.  I'm lucky to convince the locals that nihilists, democrats and nazis arent the same species.

[Whisper]

Many people are uncomfortable with their taxes being spent on programs they despise, such as birth control or the military.

But taxes are a necessary evil.  The allocation of funds and resources towards vital programs is such a convoluted and complicated procedure that only a few people can really understand it, and managing these resources is a full-time job.  If all government programs were voluntary, then people would give money based upon what they decide is important or on programs that they approve.  And many people would not pay taxes at all!

What you refer to is called the tragedy of the commons.

However, no one is claiming that all taxes are evil and unnecessary. I pointed out that taxes are coercive, and therefore only appropriate when coercion is appropriate, which it sometimes is.

Charity with one's own money is good. Charity with someone else's money, taken by coercion, isn't.

[Libertad]

All functions of the law involve coercion.  People are warned not to commit crimes, and if a person disregards the law they are punished for the infraction.  This applies to people choosing not to pay taxes.

Despite its coercive nature, taxes are good.  All societies need some form of tax because they create vital services.  Where else would we get good roads, good schools, good equipment for our military, or any other number of things millions of people need?  These conveniences would not exist if taxes were voluntary.  So taxes are good because society would fall apart otherwise.  Making people pay taxes against their will is a lesser of two evils.  And they're getting something in return for this, despite their willingness or lack thereof: all the protections and aid granted to the nation's citizens.

One could also argue that a citizen who does not wish to pay taxes be denied the services of the government.  Said citizen cannot use public roads, electricity, healthcare; all of these things and more he'll need to obtain through other means.  If he does not wish to give to the government, then the government shouldn't give anything to him.

[RedWarlock]

Actually, I'm gonna say Whisper's Agency and Humanity sound like the founding principles of a Druid-style True Neutral society.

Just to clarify, my interpretation of 'Good' isn't the same as 'best for all circumstances', and part of Good is that it is flawed, just as Evil is. True Neutral comes across as very mercenary, survival-of-the-fittest, but it lacks the self-sacrificing nature of Good, which can be manipulated by the entirely-selfish-to-the-point-of-depriving-others nature of Evil.

Taxes are a Lawful concept, in that it has that everyone must contribute to the whole. Lawful good pays his taxes dutifully, knowing his funds will be able to support others, perhaps not bothering to take all available exceptions or returns. Lawful evil also pays taxes, but tries to maximize his exemptions and does everything in his power to make sure he gets as much as possible, even to the point of cheating on the filing and things like welfare status, taking advantage of the generosity of Good individuals. Lawful neutral files proper exemptions, makes sure everything is properly organized to code, and generally tries to get everything he is owed by the due course of the law.

Is LG getting taken, enabling LE? Sure. But that's the nature of Good, doing more than necessary in the hopes that he will improve the situation of others. (If it makes things worse, LG will face that responsibility and deal with it, but he won't stop trying.) Right and Wrong are difference concepts from Good and Evil, because they are highly context-sensitive. It's still entirely possible to do something Good which ends up being Wrong, as with the Agency issue.

[Arturick]

One could also argue that a citizen who does not wish to pay taxes be denied the services of the government.  Said citizen cannot use public roads, electricity, healthcare; all of these things and more he'll need to obtain through other means.  If he does not wish to give to the government, then the government shouldn't give anything to him.

A leftist would find your proposal abhorrent, since the wealthiest, who have the least direct need of government resources, would just stop paying taxes and exist in their own luxurious microcosms.  The tax burden would shift onto the dependant, who typically withdraw more resources than they could afford to put in.

[oslecamo]

One could also argue that a citizen who does not wish to pay taxes be denied the services of the government.  Said citizen cannot use public roads, electricity, healthcare; all of these things and more he'll need to obtain through other means.  If he does not wish to give to the government, then the government shouldn't give anything to him.

A leftist would find your proposal abhorrent, since the wealthiest, who have the least direct need of government resources, would just stop paying taxes and exist in their own luxurious microcosms. 

Nope. The wealthiest above all need government to provide them with protective laws, security forces and whatnot. Unless you're willing to be a ruthless warlord and personally train a fanatically loyal personal army to watch over all your riches and not backstab you at the first sign of weakness, the government is the only thing stoping less scrupulous people from just taking all your stuff. And even if you do manage to make it happen, personal loyal armies do eat big in your profits.

This isn't D&D we're talking about, the company president can't just craft his own personal plane. He's living somewhere, and he's trusting the police and similar organizations to watch over his business (and his life).

The more you have, the harder it is to make sure it stays in your possession.

[X-Codes]

^Just because it'd be a stupid thing to do doesn't mean that the wealthy wouldn't stop paying their taxes.

[Hallack]

It should probably be clarified which forms of tax are being refereed to in the discussion. 

There is a profound difference between the income tax and its execution and fuel surcharge taxes (which are supposed to fund the roadways) for example.  This become even more important to the discussion when things like Fire departments, police forces, roadways, military, and other programs are lumped together as a general 'government services provided' type thing.

Fire and police departments for example have historically been locally funded and not by federal income taxes though this is not so true now that federal gov and increasingly used federal tax dollars to entangle local institutions under more of its influence. 

Same for many roadways. 

[Libertad]

One could also argue that a citizen who does not wish to pay taxes be denied the services of the government.  Said citizen cannot use public roads, electricity, healthcare; all of these things and more he'll need to obtain through other means.  If he does not wish to give to the government, then the government shouldn't give anything to him.

A leftist would find your proposal abhorrent, since the wealthiest, who have the least direct need of government resources, would just stop paying taxes and exist in their own luxurious microcosms.  The tax burden would shift onto the dependant, who typically withdraw more resources than they could afford to put in.

I'm not saying that it's the right course of action, just that one could make that argument to people who insist on refusing to pay taxes because they're unconstitutional or inherently self-destructive or some variant.  it's a safe bet that most people in industrialized nations rely upon government assistance in their daily lives.

As for the wealthy not paying taxes, in theory their businesses would not get government subsidiaries or bailouts, and they can't appeal to the law if someone commits crimes against them.  Even massive oil tycoons like the Koch Brothers are willing to accept billions of dollars from the federal government (a tactic at odds with their anti-government Libertarian ideology).

But many wealthy people do not pay their taxes, such as Rupert Murdoch and General Electric.  A lot of rich people use off-shore tax havens to store their wealth to avoid paying taxes, and the people who manage these havens charge so much for their services that only the mega-rich can afford to make use of them.  Why should they not pay their fair share and continue to accept government aid and bailouts to keep their businesses afloat?  These loopholes must be closed, or at the very least these rich people should be financially penalized for such behavior.

[Libertad]

Upon further realization, my argument is flawed, because rich people still receive subsidies and bailouts despite using loopholes and offshore banking.

So in theory these people should not be receiving any form of government assistance whatsoever because they have no desire of contributing to society through taxes.  The fact that a poor person gets more years in prison through welfare fraud, while rich people get less years through tax evasion is deplorable.

I can see what Arturick means in his post.

[oslecamo]

Well, to be honest, bailouts and "too big to fail" are more a sign of deep government corruption more than anything. They really weren't covered by any law at all.

And if they actualy follow some obscure law, it's simply retarded that a an organization like a bank that's suposed to deal with money gets paid extra when they fail to do their job.

It would be like if you paid a premium for medics when they let their patients die.

If you can't do your job right, at best you should be directed to another job (if not simply punished), not receive taxpayer money so you can burn it as well.

Or at least small businesses that get in trouble should also receive bailouts. But nope, small business go bankrupt all the time, but if it's mr. big organization with big contacts, the government simply showers them with cash when they fail.

It's simply no moral or ethical no matter how you look at it. Big organizations that get to the point of bankrupcy have clearly gotten too decadent, bloated and/or inneficient, and should be dismantled, not feeded with more money.

[Whisper]

Despite its coercive nature, taxes are good.  All societies need some form of tax because they create vital services.  Where else would we get good roads, good schools, good equipment for our military, or any other number of things millions of people need?  These conveniences would not exist if taxes were voluntary.  So taxes are good because society would fall apart otherwise.  Making people pay taxes against their will is a lesser of two evils.  And they're getting something in return for this, despite their willingness or lack thereof: all the protections and aid granted to the nation's citizens.

One could also argue that a citizen who does not wish to pay taxes be denied the services of the government.  Said citizen cannot use public roads, electricity, healthcare; all of these things and more he'll need to obtain through other means.  If he does not wish to give to the government, then the government shouldn't give anything to him.

Sorry about the slow reply. (Redhead.)

You're almost there.

Now you need to understand the concept of the commons, and how it relates to taxes.

The commons are those things which:

1. Are good to have.

2. Cost money.

3. Once paid for, cannot be reserved for only those who have paid.

An example of the commons would be fire suppression. It's good to have, it costs money and resources to pay and equip firefighters, but once you have them, you can't only put out fires on property belonging to subscribers...

... because fire spreads.

So fire suppression is part of the commons.

Providing for the commons is the proper role of government, and the proper reason for collecting and spending taxes. That which is not commons can be taken care of by markets, since they can be apportioned out to those who pay for them.