They can afford it
Recently, a relative commented on a public servant taking a voluntary pay cut by saying "He can afford it." This relative did not know the personal circumstances of this public servant. Her reaction was similar when addressing people who lost money in the stock market, and is similar in considering the concept of high taxes on those defined as rich.
I wonder how prevalent the attitude of "they can afford it" is in America. When addressing voluntary sacrifice, this attitude diminishes the act of altruism. When inadvertent due to risk taking, this attitude shows a lack of compassion. When forced (ie, increased taxation), the attitude shows a belief in the unfairness of the world and a need to "get even".
On the other hand, voluntary sacrifice done without fanfare is more noble. Fanfare should be reserved for situations where you want to encourage others to follow in your footsteps.
Inadvertent loss due to risk taking should be kept limited by a good investment plan, although in exceptional times, even sound strategies can fail.
However, it is quite another matter to try to "get even". This is never right. Retribution is almost always the ultimate evil and should be reserved for special circumstances. This is an intentional infliction of harm and in DocBrain's opinion, is even more unethical than greed, envy or lust. The addressing of unfairness should never include "getting even" either as a defense of actions or policy. If a person is of a circumstance that makes "getting even" seem reasonable, it is more important and certainly more ethical to prevent further wrong than to "get even".
The ethics of a graduated income tax is very problematic. Most defenses of the graduated tax system have "getting even" and "they can afford it" as part of the justification. This is just ethically wrong, solves nothing but the short term greed and desires of those who take. Using the concept of need is also problematic and the concept of want makes it purely unethical.
"They can afford it" is just plain wrong.
I wonder how prevalent the attitude of "they can afford it" is in America. When addressing voluntary sacrifice, this attitude diminishes the act of altruism. When inadvertent due to risk taking, this attitude shows a lack of compassion. When forced (ie, increased taxation), the attitude shows a belief in the unfairness of the world and a need to "get even".
On the other hand, voluntary sacrifice done without fanfare is more noble. Fanfare should be reserved for situations where you want to encourage others to follow in your footsteps.
Inadvertent loss due to risk taking should be kept limited by a good investment plan, although in exceptional times, even sound strategies can fail.
However, it is quite another matter to try to "get even". This is never right. Retribution is almost always the ultimate evil and should be reserved for special circumstances. This is an intentional infliction of harm and in DocBrain's opinion, is even more unethical than greed, envy or lust. The addressing of unfairness should never include "getting even" either as a defense of actions or policy. If a person is of a circumstance that makes "getting even" seem reasonable, it is more important and certainly more ethical to prevent further wrong than to "get even".
The ethics of a graduated income tax is very problematic. Most defenses of the graduated tax system have "getting even" and "they can afford it" as part of the justification. This is just ethically wrong, solves nothing but the short term greed and desires of those who take. Using the concept of need is also problematic and the concept of want makes it purely unethical.
"They can afford it" is just plain wrong.
posted by DocBrain at
4:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home