Thread: Legality and Morality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023275
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
A highly paid comedian in the UK has been discovered to have avoided paying Income Tax by making use of a tax avoidance scheme.
Apparently the scheme is quite legal. But the Prime Minister suggested that it was morally wrong to avoid tax.
The comedian has recanted and pulled out of the scheme.
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
I did a Bible study today and by coincidence the set passage was Paul arguing "Let each one look not only to his own interests but to the interests of others" Relevant?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral?
Maybe not in as many words, but we can argue that if something is legal then society as a whole has decided it is OK. Individuals within society may think it is immoral, and they are free to do so, but other individuals may decide that it's perfectly OK and they are also free to do so.
Let's face it - the reason there's a difference between "legal" and "moral" in the first place is because we can't agree about what morality is.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Well, several dead horse topics on this site are legal, but proponents of one side of the dead horse debate must certainly view them as being immoral.
Given that you can't define what is moral in the same way that you can define what is legal, I would therefore say that you can't say something is moral because it's illegal.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I was thinking about this today.
I know that when I file my tax return I make sure I pay as little as possible. Isn't that what Jimmy Carr was doing?
The loopholes need closing, for sure. But I don't think you can blame people for using them.
There is plenty of stuff which is legal but immoral, but my idea of immoral won't be the same as yours. So who decides?
One thing is for sure - I don't want religions to be the ones who decide, they get it wrong far to often for comfort!
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
There is a widespread consensus that adultery is immoral, but very little desire to see it made illegal.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
There is a widespread consensus that adultery is immoral, but very little desire to see it made illegal.
Why do you think this is?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral?
Maybe not in as many words, but we can argue that if something is legal then society as a whole has decided it is OK.
Are you nuts?????? The laws (at least in this country) are written by people with the money to buy the politicians. We live in a kleptocracy. Th notion that most folks are OK with that at the very least assumes facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Just because a law hasn't yet been passed to make something illegal on moral grounds, it doesn't make it morally right to do it.
Where laws have been repealed to allow what used to be illegal, there's no suggestion that they are now the morally right thing to do.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No, the comedian has no moral obligation to pay more taxes than required by law.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
As I read the gospels, it seems to me that Jesus spent time denouncing those who technically obeyed every letter of the law, but who took great pains to do so in a way that was to their own advantage and which completely ignored the spirit of the law.
Isn't that what we're talking about here? And a couple of thousand years on, would Jesus have changed his mind about whom he denounced?
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
There is a widespread consensus that adultery is immoral, but very little desire to see it made illegal.
Why do you think this is?
Because contra Marvin the fact that something is legal does not imply that society thinks it is OK.
I think that if something is to be prohibited by legislation the following conditions should be met:
a) it's severely damaging to others in some way
b) the new law should be practically enforcable
c) the new law shouldn't do more harm than good
Adultery would qualify under a) but probably not under b) and c)
[edited for typo (legal/illegal)!]
[ 21. June 2012, 15:17: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
The point is that he was NOT paying the taxes required by law but deliberately avoiding them them by using a scheme designed to circumvent the law.
It just so happens that the circumventing scheme was lawful.
You could say the answer is to close the loopholes. But the man who invented and runs the scheme says that his one aim is to find ways of getting round the law. Thats how he makes his money.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
But by using financial instruments never intended for personal use, he is paying less tax than required by law.
This, when it arrives on the statute books, ought to stop both comedians and politicians from taking the piss when it comes to paying tax.
I've previously made my practice known over on a Hell thread. I work out how much money I've earned, and put that in Box A, work out how much interest I've earned, put that in Box B, sign the form and stick it in the post. It takes fifteen minutes, tops.
That everyone doesn't do this is part of the reason why we can't have nice things.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the comedian has no moral obligation to pay more taxes than required by law.
In reference to the scheme Carr was using, I disagree. He is receiving the benefit of taxes without contributing though he easily has the wherewithal to contribute.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The point is that he was NOT paying the taxes required by law but deliberately avoiding them them by using a scheme designed to circumvent the law.
It just so happens that the circumventing scheme was lawful.
If it was lawful it wasn't circumventing the law.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That everyone doesn't do this is part of the reason why we can't have nice things.
And that Carr doesn't do it is the reason why he does have nice things.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
He contributed what the law said he had to contribute. Why should he pay more just because you think he should pay more? Send me your tax returns. You may not be paying as much in taxes as I think you should be paying.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
A lot of the time the reason why something hasn't become illegal is not that everyone thinks it's ok, but because a country's lawmakers haven't yet got round to figuring out exactly how to make it illegal in a way that does more good than harm, or even if that's possible. Changing laws is a painfully slow process. Every time a new dangerous recreational drug appears on the streets, for example, it takes a while for the lawmakers to do anything about it. Even then there will be people who try to skip around and find loopholes. In the case of tax avoidance, there's a whole industry directed towards finding these loopholes, like hackers trying to find weaknesses in a piece of computer software. And like the people who patch the software, the people who devise tax law largely find out what's wrong with the law by seeing how people get around it without breaking it. Except in a more painfully slow way.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If it was lawful it wasn't circumventing the law.
Its illegal to buy alcoholic drinks in Iran. It is not illegal to buy them in Turkey. It is legal to travel from Iran to Turkey. An Iranian who visits Turkey in order to drink in a bar has behaved entirely lawfully. but could also be said to have avoided or circumvented the laws of Iran.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If it was lawful it wasn't circumventing the law.
Its illegal to buy alcoholic drinks in Iran. It is not illegal to buy them in Turkey. It is legal to travel from Iran to Turkey. An Iranian who visits Turkey in order to drink in a bar has behaved entirely lawfully. but could also be said to have avoided or circumvented the laws of Iran.
The case under discussion would be more analogous to buying alcohol in Turkey and having it piped across the border to your house in Iran. You enjoy all the benefits of Iran's alcohol-free environment, while avoiding the responsibility of having to take part in it yourself.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I think the original question was not about taxes per se but about morality versus legality.
In an ideal society, the two concepts would probably coincide, but I know of no ideal society.
Whoever originally proposes a law probably thinks that law embodies some kind of morality, but by the time the proposal is enacted, it has usually been modified by special interests and political expediency. Thus a law is often an inadequate statement of a principle of morality.
This assumes, of course, that there is general agreement about what is moral and also that generally-agreed morality does not change over time. At one time, there were laws, probably considered morally acceptable (or better) at the time, allowing and regulating slavery, not only in the U.S. but also in the British empire and in western Europe. The general understanding of morality has changed and so has the law. There was probably a lag period when people disapproved of slavery but it was not yet illegal.
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
Depends on whether you approach it from a Natural Law or Legal Positivist perspective.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He contributed what the law said he had to contribute. Why should he pay more just because you think he should pay more? Send me your tax returns. You may not be paying as much in taxes as I think you should be paying.
This is a valid point in terms of what the laws state. The laws may themselves be immoral or arguably so, but if it is the law, then it cannot be said to be illegal (obviously). It can only be said that the law is flawed and immoral according to some argument or perspective.
The more general parallel over the past 35 years is the tax systems in western countries have favoured corporations over individuals, and the wealthy individuals over the not as wealthy. Thus we have the point made that the very rich are much richer, while the average person is poorer than a generation ago (I see the graphs frequently these days that purport to show that we are in an inequity situation not seen since the 1920s, don't know if it is accurate, but suspect it is). This might offend us, we might think it unfair, but it may or may not be immoral. If someone can become rich and not have their increasing wealth harm another less wealthy or poorer person, then it is hard to argue its immoral. But this argument does seem to be losing ground, and becoming wealthy is becoming seen as necessarily as harming poor people. A very good question.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
Its pretty easy to construct a law that would be considered (by most) imoral to keep\moral to break.
The nazi regime comes pretty close to having some clear cut examples of it in real life (neurumberg is practially based on that if not might makes right).
So in short morality clearly does not imply legality or any converse. Althoigh youd hope for some corrolation... That you could live legally and morally.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In an ideal society, the two concepts would probably coincide, but I know of no ideal society.
Oh no it wouldn't! Becuase that woudl imply that in your ideal society whatever was illegal was also automatically immoral, in other words that all you needed to do to behave rightly was to obey orders. And that would not be an ideal society.
Of course in our far from ideal society the idea that something becomes immoral merely because it is illegal, is itself immoral. The notion that breaking the law as such is inherently immoral needs to be resisted.
[ 21. June 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The notion that breaking the law as such is inherently immoral needs to be resisted.
Although Paul sometimes seems to come scarily close to saying just that...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I wonder if anyone else is using this scheme? Will we hear about them instead of a B list mildly anti-establishment comedian.
I bet they are bricking themselves in Annie's Bar and the gentlemens' clubs.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I'm not sure I agree with ken. I think maybe breaking the law is inherently immoral, unless there's a good reason for it. I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself. And I think this is deeply unfashionable and not at all something we should be fighting against.
Of course this is no excuse for not breaking the law when it would be immoral not to do so. Because real laws are not perfect.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
We won't always agree on which laws are moral and which are not moral. The question is how we distinguish between laws that we don't like and laws that we truly believe are immoral. Only the individual can make that decision. The distinction might hinge on the willingness of the individual to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Just ruminating.
I wonder if 'morality' can be identified with Good and Bad
and if legality can be identified with Right and Wrong.
So non=pacifists might say that going to war might never be the Good but it might be the Right thing to do.
In other words what might be legally right might be morally "bad"
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
In other words what might be legally right might be morally "bad"
Well, sure, we've seen this with slavery, for example.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A highly paid comedian in the UK has been discovered to have avoided paying Income Tax by making use of a tax avoidance scheme.
Apparently the scheme is quite legal. But the Prime Minister suggested that it was morally wrong to avoid tax.
The comedian has recanted and pulled out of the scheme.
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
I did a Bible study today and by coincidence the set passage was Paul arguing "Let each one look not only to his own interests but to the interests of others" Relevant?
Adultery, gossip, and waste of resources are not illegal in most places under most circumstances, but few people would agree that such things were moral.
Sometimes we're even compelled by law to do things which are morally questionable. If I had a client who confessed to murdering someone and hiding the body, I could not tell the victim's family about the crime or the location of the body because to do so would violate my client's confidence and run afoul of the laws governing the legal profession.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
Depends on whether you approach it from a Natural Law or Legal Positivist perspective.
Not really. Even a legal positivitst would recognize that a law requiring the murder of certain types of civilians is morally repugnant, even while it is the law.
Natural-law vs. legal positivism has to do with opinions about whether things ought to be illegal simply because they are immoral (natural law) or whether only those things that are specifically outlawed by act of a sovereign ought to be illegal (legal positivism).
Neither has anything to do with the idea that things are immoral by virtue of their being against the civil law. It's the other way around - they fight about whether things become illegal by virtue of their contravening "natural law."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That everyone doesn't do this is part of the reason why we can't have nice things.
And that Carr doesn't do it is the reason why he does have nice things.
The suggestion that Carr wouldn't have nice things if he paid his full whack of income tax is so spectacularly specious, the astronauts on the ISS just called. They can see your non sequitur from orbit.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I must disagree with Ken. "Obeying orders" and "following the law" are different concepts. Who says that orders will be given at all (or need to be given) in an ideal society?
You might ponder whether legality and morality will coincide in Heaven under God's rule.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
It's clearly immoral for comedians to evade tax. Tax evasion should only be for people who donate to my party.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
If the tax code is written in such a way as to allow some to minimize, or altogether avoid, tax, it seems to be morally OK as well.
The tax code, which is not part of any morals brought to us by God, contains the metes and bounds of what morality is under the tax code. If it is legally OK under the tax code, it is also moral under the tax code. QED.*
As for other circumstances, go figure it our for yourselves.
__________________
*QED is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase that means: There you have it.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
What part does 'intention' have to play in all this.
The intention of the comedian involved was to pay the least tax possible even if that meant subverting the spirit of the law against the letter of the law.
The law about tax was fixed by politicians as representative of the people. It stipulated plainly that tax should begin at 20% after an initial tax free allowance.
The man involved used a scheme in which his earnings were channeled into an off=shore account which then paid him back by way of a "loan!. And such loans are not subject to tax.
All legal. Just. But irresponsible if not immoral.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Here's a case that has some parallels.
Suppose you live in a jurisdiction where, if you assault someone and they die within, say, 366 days, then you're guilty of murder; but if they die after that, you're guilty of some lesser crime. Suppose now that you go to extreme lengths and do a great deal of research to discover how you might - for the sake of argument - administer poison to someone such that you know they will die precisely 367 days later.
Under the law you have, of course, not committed murder. But are you morally guilty of murder?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
orginally posted by shamwari:
All legal. Just. But irresponsible if not immoral.
Who is irresponsible? The politicians because they left a loophole in the tax code? The people for electing incompetent politicians?
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
I speak as an ex tax planning lawyer.
It can be regarded as irresponsible and even immoral tomavoid tax through exploiting loopholes, because the perpetrator is enjoying the benefits of living in the UK without paying for them.
However, you could argue that those who are able to exploit legal loopholes to avoid tax are also rich enough to pay for private education, private healthcare and even private security, so they don't take as much from society as the average non-avoidant taxpayer.
However, regardless of what direct benefits the tax avoider takes from the UK social structure, he or she still benefits from the general health of our society and should therefore pay the full amount required by the law, which morally should be read on an intentional level, given the inherent complexities that make loopholes inevitable.
When I was practising in this field, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the lengths to which we would go, stretching the meaning of the legislation to its limit to justify avoidance schemes such as the one Jimmy Carr was involved in. I have been out of it for a few years now and having some distance has made me feel that I wouldn't now go back to it. I just couldn't feel proud of my work at the end of the day.
Incidentally, an MP client asked us to advise on the tax implications of declaring his actual main home as his second home for Parliamentary expenses purposes. Apparently a lot of other MPs were doing this. We advised him not to do it, on the basis of how bad it would look if the Press ever found out. Bet he's so glad he took our advice now.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
However, you could argue that those who are able to exploit legal loopholes to avoid tax are also rich enough to pay for private education, private healthcare and even private security, so they don't take as much from society as the average non-avoidant taxpayer.
At the same time, though, the rich have more private property to protect, more legal contracts to enforce, than the poor. So it can be argued that they take far more from the system than those at the lower end of the scale.
Furthermore, whether or not they take advantage of public education, health care, or police is a matter of choice. They may choose not to participate, but there are no restrictions I assume barring them from using those services, they are available to rich and poor alike.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The point is that he was NOT paying the taxes required by law but deliberately avoiding them them by using a scheme designed to circumvent the law.
It just so happens that the circumventing scheme was lawful.
You could say the answer is to close the loopholes. But the man who invented and runs the scheme says that his one aim is to find ways of getting round the law. Thats how he makes his money.
Welcome to the legal arms race. Every time a new law is written by the likes of me, someone is out there trying to find the gap between what we said and what we meant. Or just to find the crazy arrangement we didn't think of.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Orfeo is irresponsible. That settles that. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
David Cameron was quoted as saying the scheme used by Mr. Carr, although legal, was "morally repugnant".
The job of the Government, in this case embodied by Mr. Cameron, is to enact legislation.
If something is legal and the Government thinks it shouldn't be, it's up to them to do something about it.
Most of us give our income tax papers to someone who knows how to pay as little as possible on this side of the law; Mr. Carr (who has now withdrawn from the scheme) was doing the same.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Orfeo is irresponsible. That settles that.
Or my instructors...
But it is a serious issue, and one that is virtually impossible to solve. If you make laws into broad principles, there's a bunch of people that spend all their time figuring out how to break the spirit of the principle while staying in the letter of the law. So you start spelling out the law in excruciating detail, and then everyone complains about how overbearing and nit-picking the law is.
If people weren't out to deliberately circumvent the spirit and intention of the law all the time by exploiting 'loopholes', then we could have much simpler and shorter laws and people could get on with the rest of their life.
For example, by spending only a brief amount of time on their tax return. That one resonates with me. Do I pay more tax then I absolutely have to? Quite possibly. Do I want to spend large amounts of time organising my life and my finances around tax minimisation? No. Do I have far better things to do with my time than obsess over saving a bit of tax? Abso-bloody-lutely.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
Most of us give our income tax papers to someone who knows how to pay as little as possible on this side of the law
Really? I sure don't. I do my own tax return every year, in one afternoon.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
There is also a difference between asking a professional to advise on the benefits and tax breaks to which you are entitled - things that the legislators have knowinly built into the system, and taking advantage of a mistake or ambiguity to avoid paying tax. I believe it is immoral chiefly because of this exploitation of weakness, as well as the deprivation of wider society from funds (that said, many wealthy tax avoiders are generous philanthropists and arguably do more good by focussing all their social contribution into one charitable channel, rather than it getting absorbed into the big pot and wasted on wars, MP's duck ponds and the like.)
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
... Missed edit window...
But that's not to say that these guys shoukdn't be paying the full whack of tax AND doing their do-gooder bit too. Some of these folk have obscene pots of money.
Jesus said much more would be required from those who had a lot and I can't imagine Him being very pleased with the guy who squirrelled £millions away in offshore LLPs but salved his conscience by endowing his Cambridge college with £5m to build a new block named after him.*
*this is a fictitious person and any resemblance on the facts to any person alive or dead is purely coincidental.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
I don't mean a perfect authority. I mean for example:
- a parent's authority over a child
- a judge's authority to enforce the law
- an officer's authority to command soldiers
If they give evil commands, you shouldn't obey them. But if they just give annoying ones, you ought to do as they say.
Even in an anarchist viewpoint one might submit to an authority one had previously consented to.
And even an evil authority may be acting in a legitimate way. Even if you live in a tyrannical dictatorship you should probably obey the traffic regulations.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
...You don't recognise the legitimacy of UK law?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
In an ideal society, the two concepts would probably coincide, but I know of no ideal society.
Ideal? Hardly. It sounds like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
...You don't recognise the legitimacy of UK law?
Not as a good thing in and of itself, no. I don't blindly obey every single law that gets farted out of the corrupt party-political mud wrestling match that is the UK government, and neither does anybody else I know.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
I don't mean a perfect authority.
But you do mean it is a good thing to obey, regardless of its perfection or lack thereof. Which means:
quote:
- a parent's authority over a child
Josef Fritzl's daughter should have just done what he told her to.
quote:
- a judge's authority to enforce the law
The people convicted by these judges should just accept their sentences.
quote:
- an officer's authority to command soldiers
The Nuremberg Defence?
quote:
If they give evil commands, you shouldn't obey them. But if they just give annoying ones, you ought to do as they say.
If it's ever right to break the law or disobey evil commands, then it's false to say that obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
I don't mean a perfect authority.
But you do mean it is a good thing to obey, regardless of its perfection or lack thereof. Which means:
quote:
- a parent's authority over a child
Josef Fritzl's daughter should have just done what he told her to.
quote:
- a judge's authority to enforce the law
The people convicted by these judges should just accept their sentences.
quote:
- an officer's authority to command soldiers
The Nuremberg Defence?
quote:
If they give evil commands, you shouldn't obey them. But if they just give annoying ones, you ought to do as they say.
If it's ever right to break the law or disobey evil commands, then it's false to say that obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
Aargh! No! No that argument does not follow! It is possible for something to be "good in itself" and yet for it to be wrong, wrong, wrong to do it under certain circumstances.
It is "good in itself" to feed the starving. But it wouldn't be good for Dr. Lecter to serve up a perfectly cooked bit of human liver with Chianti to a hungry man. Your argument is like saying "How dare you say relieving hunger is a good thing. That would mean Hannibal was right!"
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I suppose it was inevitable that the thread should broaden out to discuss whether obedience to Authority is a good / bad thing.
My gripe about the dodgy tax avoidance scheme being moral or not ( I think it isnt) was more about the morality of avoiding paying a "lawful" tax.
I dont pay my tax because some Authority has told me to. I pay because my taxes are the means by which Health and Education and all the rest are funded. What is immoral to me about the case in question is that we have someone living off and enjoying the benefits of the State whilst avoiding the responsibility of contributing to the same.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Marvin the Martian: quote:
TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
Marvin: But you do mean it is a good thing to obey, regardless of its perfection or lack thereof.
If it's ever right to break the law or disobey evil commands, then it's false to say that obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I am not sure, Martin, that I'm entirely in agreement with your reasoning, or rather the way you frame your proposition. In matters of this kind there are usually exceptions which challenge the rule, but that does not make the proposition false. IMO it is generally the case, especially in a democratic society, that obedience to the law is a good in itself even when it leads one to accept laws which one might regard as wrong or immoral, as is often the case. That is why many who engage in civil disobedience expect to be punished for breaking the law i.e. they accept the rule of law, because they hope the law will eventually be changed to promote their interests. Democratic authorities do not claim to rule because they are perfect, far from it, but because they have been legitimately chosen in conformity with agreed procedures to make decisions. Experience suggests that a bias towards acceptance of that right is for the common good.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
quote:
they accept the rule of law
This is the key here, the rule of law isn't the same as the law. Obedience to the rule of law may oblige you to break some laws, or to protest the fact that the rule isn't in fact being applied.
In JC'c case the rule of law is being broken as he has the capability to dodge laws that others cant.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
lapsed heathen : quote:
This is the key here, the rule of law isn't the same as the law. Obedience to the rule of law may oblige you to break some laws,
I think it would help if you could expand your point, and provide an example or two, as your contention is not as obvious as you seem to think it is.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
Another comedian, Ken Dodd, suffered little public opprobrium (though much hilarity) when he was caught with his tax-pants down some years ago. But Ken is a gentle, family entertainer. Jimmy Carr has traded as a satirist, notably delivering a TV diatribe against a major bank for doing just what he has been doing - juggling regulations, quite legally, to pay a derisory amount of tax. There's legality, there's morality, and then there's thumping hypocrisy.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
As for the question in the OP, this point has been made here but it's worth emphasising. Ideally, the letter of the law will effectively enforce its spirit but, in a complex area like tax law, this is difficult. Exploiting cracks in the letter to frustrate its spirit (and therefore, theoretically at least, the will of one's fellow citizens) is certainly legal, but I can't see that it's moral. Just an offence against common decency.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
As for the question in the OP, this point has been made here but it's worth emphasising. Ideally, the letter of the law will effectively enforce its spirit but, in a complex area like tax law, this is difficult. Exploiting cracks in the letter to frustrate its spirit (and therefore, theoretically at least, the will of one's fellow citizens) is certainly legal, but I can't see that it's moral. Just an offence against common decency.
Yes, and one that's only available to the very rich. Which means that even those who don't have any common decency, but can't avail themselves of highly paid accountants, are miffed.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
...You don't recognise the legitimacy of UK law?
Not as a good thing in and of itself, no. I don't blindly obey every single law that gets farted out of the corrupt party-political mud wrestling match that is the UK government, and neither does anybody else I know.
The UK parliament, not the UK government. Which might seem like nit-picking to some, but sometimes it's a distinction of vital importance.
More importantly, legitimate and 'good' aren't quite the same thing. Okay, so you disobey some laws. If you get caught disobeying, do you accept the consequences? Or do you tell the courts (or executive in some cases) "I refuse to be punished because I don't accept the law I broke was valid to begin with"?
If you accept punishment for breaking a law, you are still recognising that law's legitimacy even if you think the content of the law is downright stupid.
[ 25. June 2012, 02:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
The great scandal regarding tax is why governments are tardy to close tax loopholes, and sustain offshore funds, tax havens, Switzerland and the like.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
More importantly, legitimate and 'good' aren't quite the same thing. Okay, so you disobey some laws. If you get caught disobeying, do you accept the consequences? Or do you tell the courts (or executive in some cases) "I refuse to be punished because I don't accept the law I broke was valid to begin with"?
I'd prefer to do the latter, but in practical terms what good would it achieve? They're the ones with a police force and an army. They're not just going to let me walk away when I refuse to accept their authority.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
lapsed heathen : quote:
This is the key here, the rule of law isn't the same as the law. Obedience to the rule of law may oblige you to break some laws,
I think it would help if you could expand your point, and provide an example or two, as your contention is not as obvious as you seem to think it is.
Badly worded, I'll admit so to clear things up;
The rule of law is not that you must obey the law but that the law must apply to everyone. Any law that targets an individual or group like slavery or apartheid or segregation is not a law that has any moral authority, to act morally you will have to break these laws. The moral thing to do is to protest against them.
Tax laws are one example of where some i.e. the rich can avoid the law, legally but not morally.
Of course one may have a 'bleeding the beast' attitude to tax which you hold to be wrong but if your not protesting in the street about tax then you are not acting morally just selfishly.
If you see what I mean?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I see what you mean, but that's not quite what 'rule of law' means in my view.
Mind you, it's a phrase that gets trotted out with a few slightly different meanings.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I see what you mean, but that's not quite what 'rule of law' means in my view.
Mind you, it's a phrase that gets trotted out with a few slightly different meanings.
But its got a well-established technical meaning - basically that the government is under the law as well as subjects. The opposite of "the rule of law" is autocracy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ken, I agree, but that's not quite the way in which lapsed heathen used it. The idea he/she put forward said that laws about slavery or apartheid 'targeted groups' and somehow weren't valid for that reason.
Which isn't correct. For starters, LOTS of laws end up targeting particular people based on the presence of a particular characteristic.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I'm trying hard to think of one that I would consider legitimate. ISTM one key aspect rule of law is equality before the law.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm trying hard to think of one that I would consider legitimate. ISTM one key aspect rule of law is equality before the law.
Lawyers have obligations that non-lawyers don't. Doctors have obligations that non-doctors don't. Drivers of cars have obligations that non-drivers don't.
And so on and so on.
'Equality before the law' is an incredibly loose notion. If what you're trying to suggest is that something like skin colour is a poor choice of characteristic to distinguish between people then I'd agree, but my point is that the law spends of practically ALL of its time saying "you: do this, YOU: don't do this, You can do this if you want but those other people can't" etc etc etc.
It's a fairly fundamental drafting point that every time you grant a right or impose an obligation, you need to be clear about who you are granting to or imposing on. Sometimes it's as general as 'a person', but frequently it's not.
When people talk about 'equality before the law', I can only assume what they're trying to say is that there should be some kind of rational reason for whatever distinction between people is made. But I don't think 'rule of law' has anything to do with this, because "non-discrimination" is only part of the rules if there is a overarching law that SAYS it's part of the rules.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm trying hard to think of one that I would consider legitimate. ISTM one key aspect rule of law is equality before the law.
Lawyers have obligations that non-lawyers don't. Doctors have obligations that non-doctors don't. Drivers of cars have obligations that non-drivers don't.
And so on and so on.
OK--as psychologist in this state I have an obligation to report child abuse (unless I learn of it in privileged communication, in which case it gets ambiguous), and people who don't hold professional licenses don't so I get the point. But the distinction has to do with function, not with a personal characteristic like skin color, gender, income, etc. Equality under the law implies that people who are doing the same thing have to live up to the same standards. I don't think that's a hard distinction to make.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, which is basically what I said in the next part of my post.
HOWEVER, I don't think there is anything inherent in the concept of 'rule of law' that stops a law that discriminates on the basis of something like skin colour. So long as such a law is passed by a Parliament with competency to make laws on any subject (not always the case, eg in federal states), and so long as the Constitution of the relevant jurisdiction doesn't forbid such irrationally unequal treatment (some Constitutions do, but not all), then such a rule is a perfectly valid law.
The Australian Constitution explicitly says that the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws with respect to "the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". While there has been at least one interesting case about the precise extent of this power (especially after 1967 amendments which removed an exception that applied to Australia's indigenous people), you would be very hard put to argue in this country that a law specifically applying to members of a particular race was not a valid law that operated as part of the 'rule of law'.
Valid laws and good laws are two fundamentally different concepts, and I certainly don't think that any country that received its legal system from the UK, at the very least, confines law-making powers to making 'good' laws.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
What I'm saying is if you start writing laws that don't cant be applied to you and yours then you have broken the rule of law.
The law may be valid in a legal sense but if it denies justice then it is a bad law and should be protested.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
What I'm saying is if you start writing laws that don't cant be applied to you and yours then you have broken the rule of law.
I fail to see how this works. Are you suggesting we can't tax miners unless the mining industry has direct representation in parliament?
While I have every sympathy for the sentiments you're expressing, I simply don't think that rule of law is the right phrase for what you're trying to express. In fact I think you're illustrating the difference between legality and morality rather nicely, because 'rule of law' doesn't have anything to do with morality.
Besides, "you and yours" are represented in Parliaments. The people to whom the laws will apply are the people who get to elect the representatives.
More or less... children. Are you saying we can't make laws applying to children?
[ 28. June 2012, 00:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
As an example, I'm in charge of everything and I decide to make a law that makes it illegal to smoke while in the company of children.
Being mad I decide to make it illegal for smokers to be in the company of children.
See what I mean?
Hard to put your finger on exactly when the rule is broken. It's as much about being able to avail of the protection of the law as being subject to the strictures of the law.
Tax law is a real problem as it is used to manipulate economies as much as to raise revenue, which leads to inequalities and get outs that distort the intention.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
As an example, I'm in charge of everything and I decide to make a law that makes it illegal to smoke while in the company of children.
Being mad I decide to make it illegal for smokers to be in the company of children.
See what I mean?
No. I don't. Whether or not either of those is a valid law depends on whether or not there are other rules that say something about the right to freedom of association.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether they're GOOD laws.
[ 02. July 2012, 02:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
This seems to beg several questions about the legitimacy of governments and the scope of their powers. Skipping over the underlying arguments, I'll set forth my guiding principles:
1. All governments derive their legitimate powers from the consent of the governed.
2. That consent is revocable.
3. Consent is determined by majority rule.
4. The rights of minorities are to be protected, especially the rights of minorities to engage in activities that might enable them to win others over to their position and so become majorities.
5. All people have equal standing before the law--no one, because of conditions of birth or circumstance has different rights or disabilities so far as the law is concerned. People may have particular obligations they have taken on (such as those I took on when I chose to become a psychologist), but those are voluntary and can be surrendered, along with any accompanying privileges.
6. The legitimate purpose of government is to ensure the peace and material well-being of all those under its jurisdiction, insofar as this can be accomplished.
7. Any laws that are contrary to these principles are invalid and compel no one's obedience.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
This seems to beg several questions about the legitimacy of governments and the scope of their powers. Skipping over the underlying arguments, I'll set forth my guiding principles:
1. All governments derive their legitimate powers from the consent of the governed.
2. That consent is revocable.
3. Consent is determined by majority rule.
4. The rights of minorities are to be protected, especially the rights of minorities to engage in activities that might enable them to win others over to their position and so become majorities.
5. All people have equal standing before the law--no one, because of conditions of birth or circumstance has different rights or disabilities so far as the law is concerned. People may have particular obligations they have taken on (such as those I took on when I chose to become a psychologist), but those are voluntary and can be surrendered, along with any accompanying privileges.
6. The legitimate purpose of government is to ensure the peace and material well-being of all those under its jurisdiction, insofar as this can be accomplished.
7. Any laws that are contrary to these principles are invalid and compel no one's obedience.
The fundamental problem here is that laws are not made by governments. They are made by parliaments.
This exposes a problem with principle 3 in particular, because 'majority rule' has nothing to do with the legitimacy of parliaments as opposed to governments. Parliaments derive their legitimacy from the electoral process and from people accepting the results, and from people accepting the laws that issue from parliament regardless of whether or not it was 'their' party who formed government.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. I don't. Whether or not either of those is a valid law depends on whether or not there are other rules that say something about the right to freedom of association.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether they're GOOD laws.
And then that rule depends on another and so on, until you reach "because I can hurt you if you don't obey"
That determines no law exists but the law of might makes right.
Sadly this is the situation much as we disguise it and minimize it's brutality, but in the end it's force that enforces a law and it's valid until an opposing force overrules it.
I thought we were talking about what would make a law valid in a consensual situation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. I don't. Whether or not either of those is a valid law depends on whether or not there are other rules that say something about the right to freedom of association.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether they're GOOD laws.
And then that rule depends on another and so on, until you reach "because I can hurt you if you don't obey"
That determines no law exists but the law of might makes right.
Sadly this is the situation much as we disguise it and minimize it's brutality, but in the end it's force that enforces a law and it's valid until an opposing force overrules it.
I thought we were talking about what would make a law valid in a consensual situation.
Well, no, because that's what constitutions are for. They are the basic rules that set up the entire legal system of a country, and that all the players are required to play by.
That's precisely WHY courts are given the role of interpreting the constitution, so that someone can tell the 'mighty' parts of the system that they're not allowed to do anything they want.
And generally constitutions (at least national ones) are made considerably harder to amend than ordinary laws, so that a government can't change the basic ground rules to suit themselves.
I mean, if "do it or else" was the situation, why did we just have a massive court decision about whether Obamacare was constitutional in the United States? The entire point is that Obama (or Congress) can't just do whatever he/they want because they're "powerful".
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Orfeo quote:
I mean, if "do it or else" was the situation, why did we just have a massive court decision about whether Obamacare was constitutional in the United States? The entire point is that Obama (or Congress) can't just do whatever he/they want because they're "powerful".
Oefeo, you raise a very interesting question regarding the democratic credibility of the US Constitution: Why should nine politically unaccountable individuals, elected for life, have any say in setting aside or approving a law agreed by both Houses of the United States Congress and signed by the President?
Those nine justices also have the power to interpret the US Constitution in whatever way seems suitable to them. It is they who can do whatever he/they want because they're "powerful".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Orfeo quote:
I mean, if "do it or else" was the situation, why did we just have a massive court decision about whether Obamacare was constitutional in the United States? The entire point is that Obama (or Congress) can't just do whatever he/they want because they're "powerful".
Oefeo, you raise a very interesting question regarding the democratic credibility of the US Constitution: Why should nine politically unaccountable individuals, elected for life, have any say in setting aside or approving a law agreed by both Houses of the United States Congress and signed by the President?
Those nine justices also have the power to interpret the US Constitution in whatever way seems suitable to them. It is they who can do whatever he/they want because they're "powerful".
In terms of interpreting the US Constitution, arguably yes.
However, those 9 people:
- have no power to propose laws
- have no power to decide a dispute unless it's brought to them
- have no direct means of implementing their decisions
And so on and so forth. The Supreme Court only has authority by the power of its words. In terms of enforcement - the problem that lapsed heathen seemed most concerned about with the rule of law - a court is utterly weak. No army or police force or massive group of employees at its disposal.
Folks, this is utterly fundamental to separation of powers. Indeed it's the entire POINT. Each of the 3 branches of government is strong in some areas and weak in others - that's why it's a separation of powers, not an accumulation of them. The entire purpose is to prevent anyone having enough power to upset the applecart completely by being the ultimate authority.
The legislature has the power to pass laws, the executive has the power to implement laws, and the judiciary has the power to interpret them. The whole reason for this is to prevent one person (or group) from being in a position to make the rules up as he/she goes along.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason for this is to prevent one person (or group) from being in a position to make the rules up as he/she goes along.
Yes, thats the limiting factor in our system.
Our laws are valid to the extent that we all agree on the rules for making, passing and interpreting them.
They stop being valid when this system is perverted or sidestepped.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
Now where dose the will of the people come in?
(I know, double post sorry, connection dropped before I could edit)
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Well, Orfeo, I think you will find that the judicial activism of the Warren Court played a major role in kick-starting civil rights "legislation". Brown versus the Topeka Board of Education (1954), preceded Congressional action by a decade. Do I need to mention Roe versus Wade (1973) etc.?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason for this is to prevent one person (or group) from being in a position to make the rules up as he/she goes along.
Yes, thats the limiting factor in our system.
Our laws are valid to the extent that we all agree on the rules for making, passing and interpreting them.
They stop being valid when this system is perverted or sidestepped.
Yes. Exactly.
Most of us live in countries where the system is sidestepped extremely rarely. Thankfully.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Now where dose the will of the people come in?
(I know, double post sorry, connection dropped before I could edit)
The will of the people comes into setting up the system in the first place (agreeing to a Constitution) and continuing to agree to that system.
Why do 9 people get to decide the fate of Obamacare? Because there is implicit consent from the other players in the drama (at least, the big players) that the decision of those 9 people will be binding.
It's that sense of consent that underlies the system. If you have people refusing to recognise the legitimacy of laws or of court decisions, then there is the capacity for the system to break down.
In essence, you have the potential for revolution.
It does happen. The first example that tends to leap to my mind is the 2009 constitutional crisis in Fiji.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Well, Orfeo, I think you will find that the judicial activism of the Warren Court played a major role in kick-starting civil rights "legislation". Brown versus the Topeka Board of Education (1954), preceded Congressional action by a decade. Do I need to mention Roe versus Wade (1973) etc.?
Brown is a case about the interpretation of the Constitution. So is Roe v Wade. You cannot have either of those cases without a system that accepts that the Constitution is an overriding law that all subsidiary laws have to comply with.
They are not cases where someone decides as a matter of pure policy whether or not they think racial segregation or abortion is 'good' or 'bad'. That's what politicians are entitled to do. For judges, the question is whether racial segregation or abortion is compatible with the basic ideas that the people of the United States have previously claimed to espouse by putting something in the Constitution about due process or about equal protection. If the Constitution didn't SAY anything about equal protection, there would be no basis for a court to say "there ought to be equal protection".
Do judges make some decisions that are about fairly broad policy? Yes. But the fundamental difference is that they always have to point it back to a pre-existing rule or principle that has already been expressed. Even when they're accused of striking out into new territory and being 'activist', it's because they are pointing out the logical implications of something that was already in place.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
There was an episode in US history when the President refused to enforce a Supreme Court decision. IIRC the president was Andrew Jackson. I don't remember who the Supreme Court chief justice was, and I don't know what the decision was about.
When Jackson heard the court's decision he said, "[name of Chief Justice] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
Moo
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Orfeo quote:
Brown is a case about the interpretation of the Constitution. So is Roe v Wade. You cannot have either of those cases without a system that accepts that the Constitution is an overriding law that all subsidiary laws have to comply with.
They are not cases where someone decides as a matter of pure policy whether or not they think racial segregation or abortion is 'good' or 'bad'. That's what politicians are entitled to do.
I think, Orfeo, that you underestimate the importance of the political opinions and prejudices of the Supreme Court Justices, and the very wide degree of flexibility the justices are given to interpret the Constitution. Surely, it was policy that produced the Plessy v Ferguson (1896) judgement that secured the legal base for segregation, and that Brown v The Topeka Board of Education (1954) was a conscious reversal of that policy. In the present day it is not law which divides the court, but the Conservative and Liberal prejudices of its members. If that were not the case it is difficult to explain why nomination and confirmation proceedings are so heavily politicised.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Indeed, the whole business of judges is far more politicised in the United States than I'm familiar with, or comfortable with.
Nevertheless, once a judge is on the Supreme Court they don't actually HAVE to behave in the way that people expect of them. That's the beauty of them having tenure. And then the Chief Justice goes and upholds Obamacare despite being 'conservative'. Beautiful, isn't it? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Orfeo:
Your distinction between parliaments and governments is irrelevant to my point , since I'm not using "government" in the narrow technical sense (in which it essentially means the cabinet in a parliamentary system), but in the broader sense in which it is used in the Declaration or Independence. A legislature (whether called a parliament, a congress, or anything else) is one functional aspect of a government. And those who make the laws derive their authority to do so from the consent of the majority of those governed by those laws.
It is worth noting that Brown vs. Board of Education did not overturn any federal law, and it was a unanimous decision. It did reverse a previous SCOTUS decision (Plessy vs, Ferguson), and so find a local ordinance unconstitutional.
And the case in which Andrew Jackson defied a Supreme Court decision had to do with expulsion of the Cherokee and other Indian Nations from the Eastern US, leading to the Trail of Tears. One of the most shameful episodes in American history.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0