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

[MadImmortalMan]

Then you should never take any government benefits of any kind--since in the case of every program in existence, there exists a minority of citizens who do not want it, but from whom taxes are appropriated to support it anyway--and you would be exploiting those people.

[LaCroix]

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

1) assuming that's true, that's not at issue here. if it's legally entitled, there's no moral component. that's why i found the argument to be very flawed, because it was such a blanket statement without taking several factors into consideration

2) i don't think that's true. much of human behavior is regulated

[Jacob]

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?

It's immoral to deceive the girl about your intentions. It is not immoral to have a roommate with whom you share bills.

In fact, students living together and splitting bills is a pretty common arrangement.

[LaCroix]

Then you should never take any government benefits of any kind--since in the case of every program in existence, there exists a minority of citizens who do not want it, but from whom taxes are appropriated to support it anyway--and you would be exploiting those people.

nonsense. society supports the enactment of social programs that have various purposes, such as providing food stamps to those in need. all of society consents to it - even though who disagree with it consent to it by remaining in the country and paying taxes. thus, the poor mother with starving children accepts food stamps with no moral component attached

but those instances where someone manages to legally exploit the system and violates the purpose of the program, accepting when not in need? society never consented to that, and therefore the person has just exploited society.

[LaCroix]

It's immoral to deceive the girl about your intentions. It is not immoral to have a roommate with whom you share bills.

In fact, students living together and splitting bills is a pretty common arrangement.

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

[MadImmortalMan]

"Society" is a concept, not a person. It cannot decide anything. It cannot support anything. It merely is a description of what exists, good and bad. It can't be offended or exploited any more than can the color green.

[Razgovory]

I remember not to long ago on this board several posters claimed that a certain politician was bad because she imposed a moral viewpoint on economic activity.

[Jacob]

LaCroix, I most definitely believe that there are actions that may be legal and that are simultaneously immoral because they harm the common weal.

In general, however, I do not think this applies to receiving government benefits, subsidies, tax credits, etc. We can probably find an edge case or construct a hypothetical where it may be immoral to accept such benefits, but I expect it to be just that - an edge case or a contrived hypothetical.

I reject the more general argument that it is an individual moral failing to collect government benefits unless the collector conforms to a subjective level of deserving it independent of the legal requirements.

There is a strong current of thought that holds that unless poor people conform to the most virtuous behaviour and/or are abjectly miserable, it is immoral for them to receive help. I find that point of view odious.

[grumbler]

The issue, as I see it, is whether one is acting within the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, neither, or both.

The moral person will act within both the spirit and the letter of the law (or, in edge cases, the spirit but not the letter of the law).  The merely legalistic person will act in accordance with the letter of the law.  To argue that there is no moral aspect of laws and entitlements is to argue that there is no spirit of the law at all.

However, on can only judge whether one is acting in accordance with the spirit of the law (as one understands it) for one's self.  I agree with Jacob that there are those who propose to pass that judgement on others, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that this is right or proper. 

I'd dispute that deliberate exploitation (= immoral) only happens in edge cases and contrived hypotheticals.  Here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/san-jose-cops-rush-disability-retirement-bids-as-rules-tighten.html is a story about police retiring with disabilities (and thus receiving their retirement benefits tax-free) in a city in California.  Fifty-eight percent of the police who retire here retire with disabilities - including those who go on to have a second police career. The rate is 15% in New York City.  I'd argue that many of those claiming disability are exploiting the system, and are thus acting immorally (though not all of them are, and I can't tell the difference).  A quick search of the internet shows that this is no isolated case, and it certainly isn't hypothetical.  It is entirely legal, though.

[MadImmortalMan]

The issue, as I see it, is whether one is acting within the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, neither, or both.

The moral person will act within both the spirit and the letter of the law (or, in edge cases, the spirit but not the letter of the law).  The merely legalistic person will act in accordance with the letter of the law.  To argue that there is no moral aspect of laws and entitlements is to argue that there is no spirit of the law at all.

What if it is the spirit of the law that is immoral? In that case, LaCroix's point is worth considering, I think.

I mean it's not uncommon to have bad laws or for people to use law to do harm to other people, but it isn't the law itself that is to blame. The law has no morality. It didn't create itself. It doesn't enforce itself.

[grumbler]

What if it is the spirit of the law that is immoral? In that case, LaCroix's point is worth considering, I think.

Can you give me an example where the "spirit of the law" is immoral?  There are bad letters of the law, but I know of no case in which a legislature has said "let's make an evil law!  Might be fun!"

I mean it's not uncommon to have bad laws or for people to use law to do harm to other people, but it isn't the law itself that is to blame. The law has no morality. It didn't create itself. It doesn't enforce itself.

The letter of the law has no morality, correct.  That was my whole point.

[Valmy]

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

Right?  If I was legally entitled to take my fellow citizens tax dollars and I didn't need to, I wouldn't.  But it seems I am in the minority in that position.

[MadImmortalMan]

Can you give me an example where the "spirit of the law" is immoral?  There are bad letters of the law, but I know of no case in which a legislature has said "let's make an evil law!  Might be fun!"

Well, slavery being legal comes to mind. Laws outlawing sodomy. The law that expelled the Jews from Spain. The executive order that had Japanese Americans rounded up in camps. There are lots.

[The Brain]

England expelling the Jews 200 years before was fine.

[Eddie Teach]

And Sweden expelling them before they even got there.