Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
If you won't act morally unless you're forced to, are you a moral person?
The "Patriotic Millionares" are lobbying congress to raise taxes. They claim that they are not paying enough, and the rates at which they pay are immoral. However, when given the chance to pay more (see attached video link) not a single one was willing to do so. One of them said, in effect, that taxes are involuntary and the only way to make people pay their "fair share" is to force them. They want higher rates, they want to pay more taxes, but they still hire accountants to minimize their own tax burden and refuse to contribute more than what they claim is an immoral minimum. Which leads to the conclusion, of course, that their immoral behavior is perfectly acceptable because they aren't being forced to act morally. This confuses me. If you won't act morally until someone is holding a gun to your head, are you a moral person? Isn't morality supposed to be independent of the law?
I am using their own definition of morality. According to their website it is not ethical for them not to be paying higher taxes. So by their own definition they are acting immorally, and will continue to do so unless they are forced to stop. This is not a question of defining what is moral, they have already done so for themselves. What confuses me is that after defining what is moral they then refuse to abide by their own definitions.
7 Answers
- Call me IshmaelLv 710 years agoFavorite Answer
Morality and ethics are how you act when no one is looking. That is a concept that is FAR beyond the intellectual capacity of any progressive.
- 10 years ago
What's moral, then.
Is it moral for the government to need to take in more taxes from these people?
Is it moral for the government to continue expanding their control in ways that they shouldn't be, even when it is driving the country into further debt and creating higher rates of unemployment, thus leading more people to relinquish control of their own life to government subservience?
There's a lack of morals on both sides. This question is literally just like the original goals of the OWS vs Tea Party. Two sides of the same coin, fighting against corruption. Too bad drug addicted hippies took over OWS...
- DiLv 710 years ago
Doing something for the wrong reasons is not displaying morality. Then again, if they don't have to pay higher taxes, why should they. Warren Buffet hasn't paid his and is fighting the IRS in court. He states it's his right to do so which reminds the rich can afford lawyers and lengthy court cases. The rest of us cannot.
That's immoral.
- AvengerLv 610 years ago
The issue is very much like billionaires who claim that they can't cover all the costs of government, therefore they should not be taxed at all. Morality is in fact highly subjective and situational. The fact is that it is not up to you to decide who should pay extra so you can keep your money while reaping the benefits of our country that were paid for by others.
The wealthiest would love to have the middle class bankrupt itself trying to undo the evil done by the bribes billionaires use to buy politicians. .
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JasonLv 610 years ago
Yah...Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could give more to the Government, but it's pretty pointless unless the Government makes Larry Ellison and the Koch Brothers (aka The Three Douchebags) pony up as well.
- ?Lv 610 years ago
I don't know, ask the Christians who claim that without the fear of God's wrath, there would be no reason to not rape and murder every person you encounter.
