Mirror uses stock image of American child for front page UK foodbanks story

[grumbler]

society (which the government is essentially is)

Do you really believe that?

Do you really not believe that government is created to secure the rights and promote the interests of the members of society?

[Eddie Teach]

let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

She's paying half your rent, but she's also taking up half your space. Not real sure where the economic exploitation resides. 

[grumbler]

But I think in that situation you could question the morality of the system but not the individual. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where we owe the state more than legal requirements. Whether that's paying more tax than we have to by abstaining from taking advantage of tax credits or legal tax avoidance, or receiving fewer benefits than we're entitled to.

Interesting (and thanks for expanding your argument beyond mere assertion).  So, your argument is that there are individuals, and there is the state, and individuals should always maximize individual (or maybe family) benefit (i.e. give nothing to anyone beyond themselves) other than legal requirements?  Or, in your mind, is "the state" a separate entity from a "society" to which we may have moral obligations?  If the latter, where is the line between the state and society?  And does society offer social benefits like welfare, or does only the state do that?

My view is that the social contract isn't a legal document, and that individuals have obligations to society (which, IMO, includes the government).  Among those obligations is one to not tax resources unnecessarily, even when legally allowed to do so.  It therefor follows, in my argument, that welfare was not intended to provide a labor-free free life to anyone capable of working, and that people who accepts welfare in violation of its purpose is doing so immorally.

I also categorically reject the concept of "the morality of the system."  I know that not everyone shares this view.  I often wonder, when engaged in these kinds of philosophical debates with Brits, if there isn't a fundamental difference in our views of society based on the fact that Americans including me, I am afraid) assume that everyone thinks that the people are sovereign, while Brits assume everyone believes that the government (Parliament, to be exact) is sovereign.

[Maximus]

No. Paying taxes is a requirement, so merely complying with the law in paying them or taking tax breaks has no moral content. The choice has been made for you. Morality requires a choice on the part of the individual. Deliberately breaking the law might have, however.

But you are (ideally) involved in the process of deciding what aid will be made available. There is morality involved in deciding whether one will be entitled to it or not.

[LaCroix]

Do you really believe that?

society is "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." government is that order. the rules of society are created and imposed by the government, and (at least in the US) society chooses what those rules are. so, yes. government is society just as my neighbor is society

again, what i'm hearing from the arguments in this thread is that there is no moral duty beyond adhering to the rules of the land. no one is saying that the destitute mother with starving children should not accept food stamps, because there is no moral component with her acceptance of food stamps. but just because there is no moral component in some situations does not remove the moral component from every decision. when you try to do that, you back yourself into a corner where you find yourself admitting that people utterly (and purposefully) exploiting either the system or other individuals are not immoral. that is wrong and goes against the very concept of morality

[grumbler]

let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

She's paying half your rent, but she's also taking up half your space. Not real sure where the economic exploitation resides. 

I'm with you.  There is a moral element to your allowing her to waste four years (or whatever) of her life on a relationship under false pretenses, but she got the same $25,000 economic benefit from reduced living expenses that he did.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm so relieved that my post is no  longer hanging there like a gibbet. 

[LaCroix]

She's paying half your rent, but she's also taking up half your space. Not real sure where the economic exploitation resides. 

grumbler touched on it

I'm with you.  There is a moral element to your allowing her to waste four years (or whatever) of her life on a relationship under false pretenses, but she got the same $25,000 economic benefit from reduced living expenses that he did.

the immorality is that the man is wasting the woman's time for the mere economic benefit. she wanted a future husband, while he wanted reduced debt. she never would have participated in the scheme had she known the truth - that misrepresentation is the immorality. furthermore, i noted the grocery bill being paid in full, so even then it is not an equal divide

[Eddie Teach]

Lying is a moral failing; taking money somebody freely offers you is not.

[LaCroix]

Lying is a moral failing; taking money somebody freely offers you is not.

you are exactly right. it is a moral failing, even if it is legal

[Eddie Teach]

But getting back to the subject of taking grants for education, it's lying if you obtain them fraudulently. It's not lying if you take them legally even though you could be working or raiding your parents' savings to pay for school.

[MadImmortalMan]

society is "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." government is that order. the rules of society are created and imposed by the government, and (at least in the US) society chooses what those rules are. so, yes. government is society just as my neighbor is society

Society is a concept, and government is merely one of the entities involved in that concept.

again, what i'm hearing from the arguments in this thread is that there is no moral duty beyond adhering to the rules of the land.

You're hearing that because you are drawing an equivalent where none exists and then translating our statements through that filter.

Of course you have responsibilities to your fellow man aside from those you have to the government. The two are not the same.

[The Brain]

Nice to hear that so many posters will rape the commons to death instantly given half a chance. Warms the heart it does.

[LaCroix]

But getting back to the subject of taking grants for education, it's lying if you obtain them fraudulently. It's not lying if you take them legally even though you could be working or raiding your parents' savings to pay for school.

but the arguments in this thread said there is no moral component if it's done legally. exploiting a federal social program is not immoral if it's done legally. therefore, exploiting a girl fraudulently is also not immoral because it was done legally

Society is a concept, and government is merely one of the entities involved in that concept.

You're hearing that because you are drawing an equivalent where none exists and then translating our statements through that filter.

Of course you have responsibilities to your fellow man aside from those you have to the government. The two are not the same.

the government is not a cash tree with infinite resources, or some separate construct that watches over man like the tower of sauron. government is a system that encompasses every aspect of society. our fellow man pays into the system, and the system pays out. when you exploit social programs, you exploit your fellow man. since there's no moral component in exploiting your fellow man if it's done legally, then there's no moral component to legally exploiting your fellow man in other areas

[Eddie Teach]

but the arguments in this thread said there is no moral component if it's done legally. exploiting a federal social program is not immoral if it's done legally. therefore, exploiting a girl fraudulently is also not immoral because it was done legally

The law is much more comprehensive in banning immoral methods of taking money than immoral behaviors in human relationships.