Claiming back expenses

[expat]

Not really. If law (whichever law set you might appeal to) doesn't define ethics, then ethics are entirely a matter of opinion.

Yes. That is philosophy

[TheBigYinJames]

Not really. If law (whichever law set you might appeal to) doesn't define ethics, then ethics are entirely a matter of opinion.

By your definition, slavery was ethical, wife beating with a stick narrower than your thumb, dog fighting, all ethical. Which they are plainly not. They never were when they were legal, and they are not now. Ethics don't change until the human race changes.

Ethics is not just a matter of opinion, it's a shared opinion based on an intelligent assessment of the human condition shared by many people. The law, on the other hand, is a collection of arbitrary historical and archaic social control measures which are constantly changing.

Ethics can affect the law, sometimes. The law is merely a reflection of a general consensus which has a basis in ethics, but don't confuse the two.

[NotAllThere]

... it's a shared opinion based on an intelligent assessment of the human condition shared by many people.

That's like say "All right-thinking people think we should bring back the birch". If anyone disagrees with your idea of what's ethical, then they're either in the minority of intelligent people, or simply not intelligent.

What about former societies where slavery was perfectly acceptable, moral and decent? Who says slavery is not and has never been and never will be ethical? How do you know that these former societies were wrong. Is ethics simply down to majority view at the time? If so, then may slavery will be ethical again. If ethics are fixed and immutable, how do we decide which ones are temporal and which are eternal? To what authority do we appeal? God?

[TheBigYinJames]

That's like say "All right-thinking people think we should bring back the birch". If anyone disagrees with your idea of what's ethical, then they're either in the minority of intelligent people, or simply not intelligent.

We're getting into philosophy here. Stabbing a baby in the face is unethical, not simply because "a lot of right thinking people agree" but because there's an inherent truth to it, an axiom, which is tied up with the human condition, society and the way that most people behave. Stabbing a baby in the face is simply unethical, and you can *see* it without being able to pove it. Of course there have been times in history, and right now*, when you can get a substantial part of a society who have a view which is not ethical but which is popular.

So what is ethical is not just what *I* think, or even just what *a lot of people* think. It's tied up with an 'obviousness' and a 'rightness' which is bound to the human condition, evolution, moral senses etc. Most peopel can tap into this, some choose to ignore parts of it for their very own strong evolutionary purposes. Some young people choose to ignore the existence of a society where each person should contribute a percentage of their income in order to sustain that society. This is natural too. Young men are acquisitive by nature, they are building a fortress/fortune for their eventual breeding. How much money they can get is bound up entirely with their view of their own self worth. As they get older, they get family and interests, and possessions, this becomes less important. The ethics don't change, but their evolutionary drive to ignore or embrace certaion aspects of the underlyign societal ethics changes.

What about former societies where slavery was perfectly acceptable, moral and decent?

There are none. At no time has keeping another human being in bondage through power of force and fear of death been ethical. It may have been legal, it may have been socially acceptable by some in a very stratified layer of society, but it has never been ethical.

Who says slavery is not and has never been and never will be ethical?

I would hope you do. Unless I'm talking to a bona fide sociopath.

If ethics are fixed and immutable, how do we decide which ones are temporal and which are eternal? To what authority do we appeal? God?

Let's leave him out of it. Ethics are fixed and immutable, so we dno't get to choose which ones are temporal and which oens are eternal. They are all eternal, to all intents and purposes. As long as we are human, ethics will remain the same. We won't stab babies in the face.

*read the BBC HYS forum, and you will see this contingent, who not only support 42 days without trial, but would probably support birching, skinning alive and general torture of anyone not born in Hemel hempstead or with funny coloued skin.

[NotAllThere]

Well, the Romans and ancient Greeks considered slavery was perfectly proper. As did the nations around them. The southern states were also pretty much convinced. Did you read this article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7417000.stm They've mucked up the title - the whole point is that this guy wasn't being self-justifying. He saw nothing to justify.

But there are behaviours that throughout history and societies have been considered acceptable, normal and decent, possibly even a public duty or service, and at other times, or in other places are considered to be vile and disgusting, and worthy of the death penalty, possibly after terrible torture.

I'm sure in those societies, each would have thought that their ethical view was the immutable, unchanging and axiomatic. Who's to say which was right?

I feel perfectly justified in saying that my tax avoidance is ethical, where as his tax evasion is not, by appealing to the law. In fact I'd appeal to a higher law - "It's justified because it's my money, and it must be right, because I'm doing it".

[lambrini_socialist]

I'm sure in those societies, each would have thought that their ethical view was the immutable, unchanging and axiomatic. Who's to say which was right?

moral relativist bullsh1t of the type normally employed by the most despicable kind of Socialist Worker reader as justification for why we should be more "understanding" of certain cultures' alarming predilections for chopping criminals' hands off, mutilating the genitalia of young women, stealing elections, persecuting homosexuals etc. some things are just wrong, end of.*


* gays is rong

[NotAllThere]

I'm not a moral relativist - for precisely those reasons. I don't think that because a view is in the minority that it is wrong. But that's beside the point. How do we know what's ethical or not without appeal to a higher authority? It's either that, it seems to me, or some vague hand-waving (hand-wringing? Won't someone think of the children) talk about society and consensus.

[TheBigYinJames]

Well, the Romans and ancient Greeks considered slavery was perfectly proper. As did the nations around them.

I'm sure the enslaved nations themselves had pretty strong views against it. history is written by the victors, remember. Also you're invoking a fallacious argument used sometimes in logic called an 'Ad Populam' (go look it up in a Logic textbook if you haven't heard of it) - it basically argues that because "a lot of people think a certain way" then that proves the axiom. It's a fallacious argument, logic isn't proved by popularity poll. I don't care if every Roman in Italy thought slavery was ethical. They are wrong, it's not.

I'm sure in those societies, each would have thought that their ethical view was the immutable, unchanging and axiomatic. Who's to say which was right?

Me. They were wrong. I'm sure there are things we do now that future, more enlightened generations would think were wrong too. I hope I don't do too many of them. We are all blinded by our cultural perspective. In future keeping chickens in your backyard (which i do) may be considered heinous cruelty. Who knows. All you can try to do is be honest, and try to live as well as you can.

I feel perfectly justified in saying that my tax avoidance is ethical, where as his tax evasion is not, by appealing to the law. In fact I'd appeal to a higher law - "It's justified because it's my money, and it must be right, because I'm doing it".

I know I'm not going to convince you here, in fact I have done what you're doing in the past. My point wasn't that he was good and you were bad, or vice versa, but just that everybody suffers a certain level of non-ethical thinking in their lives, and everybody has to learn to live with that. if you're happy with what you do, great. He's happy with what he does, I expect. The point is that you shouldn't throw stones. For every thing you think he's doing "wrong" he could probably point to some stuff he thinks you are doing "wrong".

Life is way WAY too short. Leave it to Universal Justice or Karma, or God, ar whatever floats your boat, to dole out the punishments. Or just dob him in. And then live with the ethics of that

[TheBigYinJames]

How do we know what's ethical or not without appeal to a higher authority? It's either that, it seems to me, or some vague hand-waving (hand-wringing? Won't someone think of the children) talk about society and consensus.

There are basic principles which are givens in this world, we can't prove them, we just know they are true. Some are more obvious than others. Don't stab babies in the face = obvious. Don't screw the state out of money that could help the sick and infirm = less obvioius.

All that anybody can do is decide for themselves what level they want to be at. No point pointing at other people

[NotAllThere]

I know I'm not going to convince you here...

I am convinced (and already was) that there are immutable rights and wrong. C.S.Lewis said that they're written into the universe. It's your argument for that which I find unconvincing. "It's just so" seems to be as convincing as "God made it that way".

Going back to my original point. If it's illegal it's more likely to be unethical than if it isn't.

I think it is the individual's duty to pay, legally, as little tax as possible. It's the government's duty to get us to pay, legally, as much tax as possible. I don't find avoidance through loopholes unethical. I do find evasion unethical.