tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8923776766330596728..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Punishment as CondemnationAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27310439168092007892009-02-04T00:49:00.000-07:002009-02-04T00:49:00.000-07:00Income tax does not correctly fall into the bracke...Income tax does not correctly fall into the bracket of punishment. Other members of the 'audience' have reasonably argued that the rich should pay more based on the decreasing marginal utility of money;<BR/><BR/><B>Eneasz</B><BR/><I>"How about the diminishing marginal utility of the dollar? The 1-millionth dollar means a lot less to the rich than the 1-hundreth dollar means to the poor."</I><BR/><BR/>To say however <BR/><BR/><I>"On the question of whether taxation is punishment – taxation does not qualify."</I><BR/><BR/>Is a generalisation that needs more careful wording, when taking non-income tax into account. Pedantic - perhaps, but i still believe it is important. Excise tax may easily be seen as a punishment for consuming goods which do not fit in with the conventional morality or goals of society.<BR/><BR/>---------------------------------------<BR/>Borrowed from wikipedia;<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise<BR/><BR/>Adam Smith says, "The motive for the implementation of excise should be nothing more than to curb the pursuit of goods and services harmful to our health and morals." Samuel Johnson, meanwhile, is somewhat more harsh in his 1755 dictionary: "Excise - A hateful tax levied on commodities, and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid."<BR/>---------------------------------------<BR/><BR/><BR/>By a utilitarian defintion, what is excise tax on alcohol but punishment for consuming goods which are harmful to 'our health' or allegedly to our 'morals'?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Additionally<BR/><BR/><I>Sometimes – in morally culpable cases – we can find the reason in what the agent wanted to believe or wanted others to believe regardless of the truth of the matter. In these cases, we may discover that the person misusing the term is the one who deserves condemnation.</I><BR/><BR/>When the argument changes from CEO's culpability for the current recession and their high pay rates to 'tax rate increases for the wealthy'.... well it is easy to suggest that logic comes after that decision. When an argument is offered in that vein of thought, suggesting that the desire to increase the taxes for the rich is punitive, rather than simple utilitarianism is an easy jump for anyone to make, and not necessarily wrong. Any large scale action affecting millions should be thought through rationally (and may have been) and not simply a knee jerk reaction to current events. As you explain, higher tax rates for the wealthy are not punitive, unless they are motivated by the desire to impose them as condemnation measures upon members of the wealthy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-72912269443442882062009-02-03T13:31:00.000-07:002009-02-03T13:31:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.piahwefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14301480369336177718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29225672023365045092009-02-03T13:19:00.000-07:002009-02-03T13:19:00.000-07:00"The thwarting of the desires of others is not a s...<I>"The thwarting of the desires of others is not a side-effect of punishment, it is a part of the purpose of punishment."</I><BR/><BR/>Punishment is used in order to correct a given behavior, so desire-thwarting is more of a method than a purpose. I think if thwarting desires is the <I>purpose</I> of a given action, it qualifies as torture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com