Is working around the intent of the law breaking it?

[TysonLPrice]

I was reading an article about a method to avoid paying the bulk of estate taxes by shuffling money around in trusts. The government, in a deliberate attempt to stop that, made some changes to existing laws. That opened up another loophole allowing for estate taxes to be avoided with another method. Do you think knowing what the intent of the law is, but circumventing it because it was written with an unintentional loophole is wrong? I know strictly speaking it isn’t but if you took it down to a personal level where you asked a friend not to do something but he/she did it anyway because you were not specific enough, you would probably feel it is wrong. So the question is if you know the intent of a law but see a loophole is it OK to use it.

Another example, although a little different, is this. A man was on trial for killing another man in a highway accident here recently and was found to be on drugs. Everything was heading towards a conviction after months of trials and it came up another police department, other than the arresting department, came on the scene two minutes earlier. That put the drug testing two minutes outside the three hours required range and the evidence was dropped. The man beat the changes. There is no doubt the man was high, but the three hours is a protection granted because the system might absorb more of whatever is in the body meaning that wasn’t actually how high or drunk you were at the time of the accident. I can see that loophole being more acceptable than the first but the bottom line is the man used it to avoid responsibility for killing someone.

My personal feeling is that in both cases justice is not served. However, in both cases I would probably use the loopholes.

Would you disregard the intent of a law, knowing the intent, because it was written in a way that opened a loophole?

[techgnome]

At best (or worst) it's morally wrong perhaps... maybe even ethically wrong (unless you're the lawyer, then you're bound to get your client off by what ever shenanigans available) ... but I know that if there are loopholes in something, I'm sure as heck going to use them. I use all the loopholes I can when filing my taxes. As for the second case... personally I think all cops should have the ability and training to take blood samples in that case to ensure the timely collection of evidence... or it should be one of the first things EMTS do (after anything critical or life-threatening of course) when arriving on scene. There should be no need to wait 3 hours for that. It should be done as close to the incident as possible.

-tg

edit- BTW - I've been in that situation, where someone else did something because I wasn't specific... my daughter when she was 3 or 4, got caught writing on a wall in the house. So I told her she was never to write on that wall again... a few weeks later I caught her writing on a wall again... a different one... when I asked her why she was writing on the wall "Because you told me I couldn't write on that wall over there." .... IT was hard to argue with that logic... so I closed that loophole and told her she was not to ever write on ANY wall... we've learned to be a LOT more specific with that child...

[Steve R Jones]

Kind of related to Tyson's accident.... If you're borderline intoxicated AND in rural America and get pulled over for a DUI - you can insist on a blood test... Often times that requires a trip to the county hospital to have the blood drawn... Doing this can buy you some time where your blood alcohol count will be lower. Course, the blood test is also more accurate than blowing....

And related to that - if and when arrested for a DUI - you can request a second test at your expense. The two results are "averaged" thus giving you a better chance... However, the police departments aren't required to tell you this. - it's almost a reverse loophole.

[TysonLPrice]

Kind of related to Tyson's accident.... If you're borderline intoxicated AND in rural America and get pulled over for a DUI - you can insist on a blood test... Often times that requires a trip to the county hospital to have the blood drawn... Doing this can buy you some time where your blood alcohol count will be lower. Course, the blood test is also more accurate than blowing....

And related to that - if and when arrested for a DUI - you can request a second test at your expense. The two results are "averaged" thus giving you a better chance... However, the police departments aren't required to tell you this. - it's almost a reverse loophole.

The dilemma for me is when is justice served and isn’t that what gets hurt taking advantage of loopholes. They interviewed the man whose daughter was killed in the accident I mentioned and he considered it a travesty of justice. The man was guilty, everyone knew he was guilty, and yet he walks free.

At times like that maybe a Don Corleone would help get justice. Or maybe if a group of tribal elders met and looked at what the human impact and the intent of the law was and decided on what should be done. I’d say for the most part the U.S. legal system is one of the most fair in the world. But sometimes, in my opinion, it fails us.

[szlamany]

Those are really tax codes - tax regulations - not laws. Different from criminal laws by far!

What is the difference between putting $2000 in an IRA and sheltering that from tax liability or doing something to protect your estate assets from tax liability.

If they want to get tax dollars on the "estate trust moving around" business then they can tax that activity by just creating more tax code.

It's a vicious cycle...

[TysonLPrice]

Those are really tax codes - tax regulations - not laws. Different from criminal laws by far!

What is the difference between putting $2000 in an IRA and sheltering that from tax liability or doing something to protect your estate assets from tax liability.

If they want to get tax dollars on the "estate trust moving around" business then they can tax that activity by just creating more tax code.

It's a vicious cycle...

Then I didn't express my real intent in the thread, but techgnome hit it. I'm talking about when a person knows the intent of a "rule" or law but circumvents it using a method that avoids the intent. You make a valid point...but I'm looking at it from more of a philosophical standpoint.

[szlamany]

If we were simply discussing the merits or demerits of careful navigation of tax regulations that would be one thing.

But to liken that to trying to avoid criminal charges for something that you clearly did - knowingly yet - seems a bit over the top to me...

[TysonLPrice]

If we were simply discussing the merits or demerits of careful navigation of tax regulations that would be one thing.

But to liken that to trying to avoid criminal charges for something that you clearly did - knowingly yet - seems a bit over the top to me...

I see what you mean. That's seems like something along the lines of how dirty can my hands get before I've crossed the line. If nine out of ten people obey the intent of the law and one skirts it via a loophole then hasn't that one person taken advantage of us all. Maybe you see it as a matter of degree, nobody was murdered, and I can see that. I guess another part of it is justifing something to yourself.

[Shaggy Hiker]

In the case of the car accident, I'm not sure how much it matters. The real question there doesn't have anything to do with the outcome of the courts, it has to do with the driver himself. The girl is dead, a fact which is not changed if the driver goes to jail for life or is set free. The rest of the drunk drivers/texting drivers are not going to say, "whoa, that guy got a serious jail sentence, I better not drink and drive anymore." If everybody felt that way we wouldn't still have DUI, but we certainly do. What would really infuriate people would be if the driver took out an ad in the local paper saying "Neener Neener Neener", or something like that. In other words, the finding of the court of law doesn't matter, only his point of view matters. We may think it's somehow morally justified for a person to be punished for doing something wrong, but when your actions cause the accidental death of another person, there's really no punishment out there that changes anything.

That's not the case with tax loopholes, though, or intentional homicide, for that matter. In either of those cases...it's massively complex, and the law can be seen as a correction to undesirable behavior, but not always. There are reasons to cheat on your taxes that any particular person would forgive. There are reasons that liberals would laud and other reasons that conservatives would consecrate. On the other hand, there are reasons that both would feel were totally wrong. But it's a willful act, not an unintended and unexpected side-effect of some other willful action. The law doesn't have much flexibility to understand, or take into account, the motivation of the act, but everybody will judge the act based on their perception of the motivation, so whether or not it is even morally wrong will depend largely on the observer. Therefore, follow the letter of the law and follow the intent of the law when you feel it is right to do so. Everybody will judge you based on faulty understanding anyways.

[TysonLPrice]

I'm beginning to see where my two examples might be apples and oranges so for arguments sake let me focus on the tax scenario.

That's not the case with tax loopholes, though, or intentional homicide, for that matter. In either of those cases...it's massively complex, and the law can be seen as a correction to undesirable behavior, but not always. There are reasons to cheat on your taxes that any particular person would forgive. There are reasons that liberals would laud and other reasons that conservatives would consecrate. On the other hand, there are reasons that both would feel were totally wrong. But it's a willful act, not an unintended and unexpected side-effect of some other willful action. The law doesn't have much flexibility to understand, or take into account, the motivation of the act, but everybody will judge the act based on their perception of the motivation, so whether or not it is even morally wrong will depend largely on the observer. Therefore, follow the letter of the law and follow the intent of the law when you feel it is right to do so. Everybody will judge you based on faulty understanding anyways.

This link is to the story that got me thinking about it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...0-billion.html

I think it is a little more cut and dry than your last post seems to indicate and it also seems to skirt what I'm really asking. Clearly the intent of the law was to close the existing loophole. Regardless if some people think it is a little bad, some would laud you, and some would forgive, etc. that all jut seems like self justification. I'm talking about what I see as two very cut and dry events:

1. A law was put in place for a particular reason.
2. Some people, seeing a loophole in the way the law was written, circumvent it.

And I guess in it's simplist terms do the forums members consider that wrong?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oh, well in that case my answer is an unqualified MAYBE!

If you feel that part of your duty as a citizen is to contribute financially to the governing of society, then you would likely pay taxes. If you feel that the government is a parasite that should be starved of food, then you'd probably avoid paying taxes. Even if you were in the first group, how do you decide what it the right amount to pay? That generally comes down to a sense of fair-play which is so ingrained that it can be shown in chimps as well as humans. We appear to have a hard-wired sense of fair play, though not everyone has the same triggers for it.

If I feel that all my peers are contributing X% of their income to fund government services, then I'd probably feel pressure to pay X%, as well. If I did a survey and found that my most of my peers were legally obliged to pay X%, but were shirking that and paying some lesser amount, or even nothing, then I'd probably feel less inclined to pay X%. Since I'm not going to do a survey of my peers, it's up to my emotions as to whether I think that I am paying more or less than my peers, and it's also up to my emotions as to who I consider a peer.

In other words, I think the question comes down to societal pressures and will have a different answer for different people. As for my personal view...it's mixed. If the loophole is there and legal, and a company doesn't take advantage of it, isn't that fiduciary misconduct? They aren't maximizing either short term or long term gains for their shareholders. Furthermore, if they feel that the intent was that they pay more in taxes, but they are not legally required to do so because of the way the law is written, how much more should they pay?

[TysonLPrice]

Oh, well in that case my answer is an unqualified MAYBE!

If you feel that part of your duty as a citizen is to contribute financially to the governing of society, then you would likely pay taxes. If you feel that the government is a parasite that should be starved of food, then you'd probably avoid paying taxes. Even if you were in the first group, how do you decide what it the right amount to pay? That generally comes down to a sense of fair-play which is so ingrained that it can be shown in chimps as well as humans. We appear to have a hard-wired sense of fair play, though not everyone has the same triggers for it.

If I feel that all my peers are contributing X% of their income to fund government services, then I'd probably feel pressure to pay X%, as well. If I did a survey and found that my most of my peers were legally obliged to pay X%, but were shirking that and paying some lesser amount, or even nothing, then I'd probably feel less inclined to pay X%. Since I'm not going to do a survey of my peers, it's up to my emotions as to whether I think that I am paying more or less than my peers, and it's also up to my emotions as to who I consider a peer.

In other words, I think the question comes down to societal pressures and will have a different answer for different people. As for my personal view...it's mixed. If the loophole is there and legal, and a company doesn't take advantage of it, isn't that fiduciary misconduct? They aren't maximizing either short term or long term gains for their shareholders. Furthermore, if they feel that the intent was that they pay more in taxes, but they are not legally required to do so because of the way the law is written, how much more should they pay?

OK let's try it this way.

1. A new law is enacted that is now the law of the land.
2. Someone finds a loophole in that law and despite knowing the intent of the law circumvents it.

In it's simplist terms do you think that is wrong?

[dunfiddlin]

You have to separate in your mind, criminal, immoral, and unethical. Although they all appear interrelated, the truth is that they have very little to do with each other. You also have to remember that making something illegal is never the same thing as stopping people doing it. All that law does is to provide a means and justification by which a Government (of whatever type it may be) may prosecute anyone believed to have acted contrary to the law. As such it is the duty of the legislative body to enact laws which have no loopholes. A citizen has no duty to obey laws that have not been written whatever the intent of the law that has. It may be unethical (within that individual's duties and obligations under professional codes of practice, for example, in which case other bodies might consider disciplinary action), it may be immoral (in so far as any recognisable moralities even exist at this point in history) but it is only criminal if specifically prohibited by the relevant statutes.

Of course none of this has anything to do with justice. Justice is only possible where injustice never occurred in the first place or where reparation is sufficient to restore the state of the 'victim' to a state identical to that which pertained before the injustice was committed. To all intents and purposes, of course, both of these are effectively impossible but more importantly neither is the concern of a criminal prosecution. There is but one concern in a criminal case - can it be proven that you did something contrary to the law. If it can then the Government is justified in imposing a penalty on you.

[Shaggy Hiker]

In the simplest terms: I agree with Dun on this.

[techgnome]

OK... if we want to deal with simple terms:
The law: Everyone pays taxes.
The intent of the law: to ensure that everyone pays taxes.
The loophole: I can deduct certain expenses so that I pay fewer taxes.

So... is that wrong for me to do so? The amount I pay in taxes is more than some people will make in a year... so yeah, I'm going to find and use any loophole I can ... will I feel bad about it, given how DC hasn't been working lately... not really.


-tg

[Steve R Jones]

This link is to the story that got me thinking about it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...0-billion.html

One of the opening lines-> “How many times do you have to pay taxes on money?”

He's got a point.... He's already paid taxes on his money... He gives it away and suddenly the government wants another 40% . If his kids receiving the the money turn around and give away what's left over....ANOTHER tax.. I'd look for loopholes without giving it a second thought

[TysonLPrice]

Hmmm...Interesting answers. Some seemed liked flimsy justifications but I respect the points of view. To me it the answer is in two parts. Absolutely it is wrong. I wish I hadn't used taxes as an example though. Part two, absolutely I would do it. Just speaking for myself I wonder when I went from things being black and white, right or wrong, to things being grey. I know it was before my hair did.

It reminds me of a line in the movie "Rainmaker" (I think that was the movie). One lawyer asked another, "Do you even remember when you first sold out".

I bet if you went into a high school and asked that question it would be almost unanimous it is wrong. Probably half that in college. And pretty much what was posted here in a room full of adults. Please don't take this post as any value judgment against anyone here. I'm just speaking for myself and I would also take the deduction.

I like the answer from the child and the walls. Out of the mouths of babes

[FunkyDexter]

I'm not sure anyone's really answered the question as asked (actually, Steve might have).

It's not about whether the law and morality always line up. They don't and we all know they don't. That's because law must be definitive where morality is subjective and because it is almost impossible to codify anything complex which allows some desirable exception cases without inadvertently allowing some undesirable ones. I don't think there's much surprising there. It is important to understand, though, that the law does represent society's best attempt to codify it's morals. imperfect though t may be, and it therefore represents society's best attempt to describe how we should all behave.

What the question is about, though, is whether it's acceptable to behave in a manner which society has deemed illegal and therefore immoral in the best terms society has available to define such things. Taking that article as an example, is it morally acceptable for Adelson to have avoided his tax in this way. It's legal, certainly (otherwise it would be evasion rather than avoidance), but is it moral. The fact that this tax exists and is on the statute books in theory means that the society of the population of the US has decided that this if fair and those wishing to pass large sums to the next generation should be obliged to pay a "fair share" of it back to society first. So by avoiding it he's not taking that money from some dark overlord called "the guvermint" but rather he's taking it away from society as represented by "the guvermint", in other words: you.

The key phrase there, though, was "in theory". Steve puts forward a rational argument as to why it may be unfair for society (or "you") to demand that money in the first place. If he's earned it, paid his income tax on it, and his children will ultimately pay some form of sales tax on it, why should he be expected to give more than his "fair share". Really it comes down to what you consider "fair share" to mean.

I'm still missing the point there though. But only because I want to frame the my argument. The point is that, while both sides of the argument may be rational, if society has presently deemed that it's morally right for him to pay 40% on that money then is it acceptable for him to arbitrarily overrule the decision the rest of society has made? (questions of legality don't come into it if the intention of the law is understood which, in this case, I'm pretty sure it is) For me the answer to that question in this case is an unequivocal: No, it's not. In this case I believe his decision is motivated purely by greed and a desire to avoid paying what society (of which he chooses to be a part and whose structures and institutions have accommodated him in acquiring that fortune) has deemed to be his "fair share". He may not agree that it's his fair share but he chooses to make his fortune in a society that does deem it to be so. If he wants to benefit from that society he should be playing by that society's rules.

There is a deeper question, though. Is it ever morally acceptable to break society's rules because you disagree with them? For me that's actually a yes and the difference is all about motivation. Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest and is the last recourse when a government absolutely refuses to listen to it's constituents. I like democracy, on the whole, but I recognise it to be imperfect and it's all too easy for a government to become detached from it's constituents. Further there are times when society as a whole makes a decision that most of us will look back and agree was wrong (apartheid is rather obvious one that springs to mind). At times like that I believe it's acceptable to not only look for loopholes in a law but to out and out break it. When the law is an ass it's not only acceptable to undermine it in any way you can, it's laudable. Of course, the decision of when a law is unjust is subjective and only history will be able to decide whether you were right to do so.

So it is sometimes acceptable to work against a law and sometime not. For me the best litmus test available is whether the sacrifice you are willing to make to undermine is greater or less than the benefit you are likely to receive if that law were changed. I struggle to believe Adelson is making a stand for altruistic reasons and struggle to believe that he's put 2.8 billion dollars worth of effort into this. Nelson Mandella, on the other hand... well it's hard to look at someone risking an almost certain death sentence (it was a huge surprise when they were sent to ail instead of being executed) and giving up 27 of his life in incarceration and argue that they were just being selfish.

[TysonLPrice]

OK... if we want to deal with simple terms:
The law: Everyone pays taxes.
The intent of the law: to ensure that everyone pays taxes.
The loophole: I can deduct certain expenses so that I pay fewer taxes.

So... is that wrong for me to do so? The amount I pay in taxes is more than some people will make in a year... so yeah, I'm going to find and use any loophole I can ... will I feel bad about it, given how DC hasn't been working lately... not really.


-tg

You kicked it right back at me as the tax issue I tried to take out of the question. The tax story got me thinking of the topic but I wish I had used a different example.

[TysonLPrice]

You have to separate in your mind, criminal, immoral, and unethical. Although they all appear interrelated, the truth is that they have very little to do with each other. You also have to remember that making something illegal is never the same thing as stopping people doing it. All that law does is to provide a means and justification by which a Government (of whatever type it may be) may prosecute anyone believed to have acted contrary to the law. As such it is the duty of the legislative body to enact laws which have no loopholes. A citizen has no duty to obey laws that have not been written whatever the intent of the law that has. It may be unethical (within that individual's duties and obligations under professional codes of practice, for example, in which case other bodies might consider disciplinary action), it may be immoral (in so far as any recognisable moralities even exist at this point in history) but it is only criminal if specifically prohibited by the relevant statutes.

Of course none of this has anything to do with justice. Justice is only possible where injustice never occurred in the first place or where reparation is sufficient to restore the state of the 'victim' to a state identical to that which pertained before the injustice was committed. To all intents and purposes, of course, both of these are effectively impossible but more importantly neither is the concern of a criminal prosecution. There is but one concern in a criminal case - can it be proven that you did something contrary to the law. If it can then the Government is justified in imposing a penalty on you.

I never considered it criminal. In a black and white world I think it is not moral or ethical. And once again I wish I hadn't used taxes as an example.

[dunfiddlin]

In a black and white world I think it is not moral or ethical.

In a black and white world there are no opinions only facts. Such a world does not exist and, despite certain religious groups' claims to the contrary, never has (one day I must get round to writing a book on the Deuteronomic Fallacy!)

[dunfiddlin]

if society has presently deemed that it's morally right for him to pay 40% on that money then is it acceptable for him to arbitrarily overrule the decision the rest of society has made?

Society can never be a determinant of morality. Morality is either absolute or it does not exist. What you are talking about here is clearly an ethical issue which is why I set out to make the distinction in the first place. It is not the case that what is legal is necessarily moral nor ethical, nor that what is illegal is necessarily immoral nor unethical, nor that what is moral is necessarily ethical and so on.

The truth is that the whole question is amongst those which are completely undecidable. The reality is that ultimately morality, ethics, and law, however you define them are not the only, nor indeed the principal, determinants of human behaviour making theories of 'original sin' be they religious or humanist or merely biological far and away the best descriptors of the human condition available to us.

[TysonLPrice]

In a black and white world there are no opinions only facts. Such a world does not exist and, despite certain religious groups' claims to the contrary, never has (one day I must get round to writing a book on the Deuteronomic Fallacy!)

Your being pedantic, I guess most IT professionals are. In a conversation most people understand what is being said when you say "in a black and white world".

[dunfiddlin]

Yes I am being pedantic but it's my philosophy training not my IT skills that's responsible for that. It's very important to a philosopher to determine the difference between ideal and actual, possible and probable, etc. Perhaps it is a bad example to choose but tax is the epitome of the grey that represents the real world. The problem for regimes of all colours is always that our acceptance of legislation can only ever be implicit yet, for government to work at all, it must be absolute and non-negotiable. Thus law, being by its very nature presumptive in the extreme, is always as much the object of resentment as respect and therefore obeyed only in so far as is necessary to avoid penalty. Distasteful as it may be, the fact is that we are all naturally inclined to worry more about what we can get away with than what the law demands of us. Just watch the traffic for half an hour - if you can find someone who is driving 100% legally my dog will be the next Cruft's champion (which, as she is not a pedigree and only has 3 legs, would indeed be a miracle!)

[FunkyDexter]

It is not the case that what is legal is necessarily moral nor ethical, nor that what is illegal is necessarily immoral nor unethical, nor that what is moral is necessarily ethical and so on.

I didn't say it was. In fact I went to some pains to point out that it wasn't. What the law is, however, is society's best attempt to define the moral code it expects members of that society to live by.

Forget the law. It's not relevant. What's relevant is whether or not it's is morally right to take advantage of the benefits a society offers you while refusing to abide by the moral codes that society has collectively agreed upon for it's members. I would argue that, no, it isn't, unless you are doing so for some higher moral reason (holding up a mirror to discrimination against an unrepresented minority, for example) which must, by definition, be selfless. In the case cited here the individual is clearly not altruistically motived. He is entirely selfishly motivated. He fully understands the intent of society, that he should pay his "fair share" and fully understands what society has deemed that "fair share" to be, yet he chooses not to abide by that even though he has benefited from all that that society offers. That is taking without giving which is in inherently immoral stance. To view that as anything other than immoral is to declare that society has no worth, which it demonstrably does for us as gregarious great apes.

So you're right in the assertion that society does not determine morality, but it does have a right to expect it's constituents to follow a certain moral code and to penalise them when they refuse to do so. You, as an individual, can follow an entirely different moral code as you wish, but you cannot then morally consider yourself to be part of that society or partake of it's benefits. By partaking in a society you enter into a de facto contract to abide by it's collective moral decisions.

[TysonLPrice]

Yes I am being pedantic but it's my philosophy training not my IT skills that's responsible for that. It's very important to a philosopher to determine the difference between ideal and actual, possible and probable, etc. Perhaps it is a bad example to choose but tax is the epitome of the grey that represents the real world. The problem for regimes of all colours is always that our acceptance of legislation can only ever be implicit yet, for government to work at all, it must be absolute and non-negotiable. Thus law, being by its very nature presumptive in the extreme, is always as much the object of resentment as respect and therefore obeyed only in so far as is necessary to avoid penalty. Distasteful as it may be, the fact is that we are all naturally inclined to worry more about what we can get away with than what the law demands of us. Just watch the traffic for half an hour - if you can find someone who is driving 100% legally my dog will be the next Cruft's champion (which, as she is not a pedigree and only has 3 legs, would indeed be a miracle!)

Your stating the reality of it based from your personal viewpoint and life experience as would be expected from anyone. I maintain that you are letting that keep you from stating the obvious. Knowing the intent of a rule or a law, and deliberatly circumventing it, is wrong. Slice and dice it anyway you want but in our current system of mores, and how we would like our children grow up, that is how most people would see it.

Then it comes down to what people actually do. There I think our thoughts come more into line. I've yet to read of a philosopher that "determined the difference between ideal and actual, possible and probable, etc." You’re lucky that you get the few that agree we exist

The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. - Bertrand Russell, Science and Religion

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
"It depends what you mean by ‘change’..."
"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"
"Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the light bulb exists."

[Shaggy Hiker]

It seems that this might be covered in song. Here's the first line (it depends on how you pronounce mores, though):

If your actions are so fine
Just to toe the social line
That's a mores.

[TysonLPrice]

[dunfiddlin]

Knowing the intent of a rule or a law, and deliberatly circumventing it, is wrong.

No. It's not. Firstly because, in reality, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong so it can only ever be a matter of personal opinion (you clearly think the intention is good in this case but that is not a widely held opinion much less a universal truth!) But mostly because circumventing a law is often the only 'right' thing to do. I really shouldn't have to point this out in the year that marks the centenary of Rosa Parks birth! Law is an imposition of the state, pure and simple. It comes with absolutely no guarantees that it is fair, just, or reasonable - in fact it is very rarely any of these! In so far as any moral standard can be said to exist it is at best morally neutral, at worst immoral (slavery and apartheid being the most obvious but by no means isolated examples).

The principal intention of all law is quite simply governance, more usually subverted to protect the interests of those who make the law or, by political funding etc. make the lawmakers. In so far as we are engaged in a social contract with our Governments to accept governance we are only bound to 'obey' the law as it stands. We accept the responsibilities imposed by statute in order to enjoy the rights we are afforded by those who write them. It is not our job to interpret intention nor correct errors made by the legislator in framing the law.

Clearly you find the wheeling and dealing with the Government (aided by lawyers and accountants on both sides) which this entails distasteful but it is entirely an amoral process. It is neither right nor wrong per se though external circumstances may push us one way or another in our own judgements. That this is truly nothing to do with morality is nowhere better illustrated than in the 5th Amendment. Even the Government itself does not require its citizens to confess all their sins. It simply does not have the moral authority.

Pedantic or not I still insist on the absolute separation of morality (what we must or must not do as defined by categorical imperatives which are external to humanity and therefore, in age that finds it increasingly impossible to stretch beyond ourselves, might very well be considered to be an entirely empty concept), ethics (what we should do or not do in so far as we are bound by profession or association or community) and legality (what we are required to do or not do under pain of penalty). This means that whilst we may earnestly wish that people behaved in a less self-interested way with regard to the law and may hold them in low regard as a result we simply have no authority to require them to do so nor any right to impose our own opinion of right and wrong upon them. We are all entitled to demand that what is not explicitly illegal be legal and also reserve the right to act illegally without penalty when law is unfair, unjust, or simply irrational.

[TysonLPrice]

No. It's not. Firstly because, in reality, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong so it can only ever be a matter of personal opinion (you clearly think the intention is good in this case but that is not a widely held opinion much less a universal truth!) But mostly because circumventing a law is often the only 'right' thing to do. I really shouldn't have to point this out in the year that marks the centenary of Rosa Parks birth! Law is an imposition of the state, pure and simple. It comes with absolutely no guarantees that it is fair, just, or reasonable - in fact it is very rarely any of these! In so far as any moral standard can be said to exist it is at best morally neutral, at worst immoral (slavery and apartheid being the most obvious but by no means isolated examples).

The principal intention of all law is quite simply governance, more usually subverted to protect the interests of those who make the law or, by political funding etc. make the lawmakers. In so far as we are engaged in a social contract with our Governments to accept governance we are only bound to 'obey' the law as it stands. We accept the responsibilities imposed by statute in order to enjoy the rights we are afforded by those who write them. It is not our job to interpret intention nor correct errors made by the legislator in framing the law.

Clearly you find the wheeling and dealing with the Government (aided by lawyers and accountants on both sides) which this entails distasteful but it is entirely an amoral process. It is neither right nor wrong per se though external circumstances may push us one way or another in our own judgements. That this is truly nothing to do with morality is nowhere better illustrated than in the 5th Amendment. Even the Government itself does not require its citizens to confess all their sins. It simply does not have the moral authority.

Pedantic or not I still insist on the absolute separation of morality (what we must or must not do as defined by categorical imperatives which are external to humanity and therefore, in age that finds it increasingly impossible to stretch beyond ourselves, might very well be considered to be an entirely empty concept), ethics (what we should do or not do in so far as we are bound by profession or association or community) and legality (what we are required to do or not do under pain of penalty). This means that whilst we may earnestly wish that people behaved in a less self-interested way with regard to the law and may hold them in low regard as a result we simply have no authority to require them to do so nor any right to impose our own opinion of right and wrong upon them. We are all entitled to demand that what is not explicitly illegal be legal and also reserve the right to act illegally without penalty when law is unfair, unjust, or simply irrational.

That was certainly a mouthfull...

I find this a bit confusing:

"Pedantic or not I still insist on the absolute separation of morality (what we must or must not do as defined by categorical imperatives which are external to humanity and therefore, in age that finds it increasingly impossible to stretch beyond ourselves, might very well be considered to be an entirely empty concept)"

At any rate I'm sure you know what you meant. I guess at this point we need to agree to disagree. At least I do. I'm not swayed by your posts and see some contradictions in them. My attempts to keep it simple didn't work and that's fine too. Here are some example of behavior that if I follow your line of reasoning are acceptable:

In 2005 Wal-Mart planned a store in Calvert County, Maryland. While a law in the county restricted the size of a retail store to 75,000 square feet (7,000 m2), Wal-Mart considered a plan that would dodge this restriction by building two separate smaller stores. Though Wal-Mart later withdrew this controversial plan, the plan highlighted a legal loophole.[2]

Ford Transit ConnectParts of the interiors of U.S.‑bound Ford Transit Connect were stripped immediately upon importation to circumvent the 1963 Chicken Tax, which imposes a 25% tariff on imported light trucks. Ford imports all Transit Connects as "passenger vehicles" with rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts.[3] The vehicles are exported from Turkey, arrive in Baltimore, and are converted into "light trucks": rear windows are replaced with metal panels and rear seats removed.[3] The process exploits a loophole in the customs definition of a commercial vehicle. As cargo does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, the mere presence of those items exempts the vehicle from light truck status. The conversion process costs Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but allows it to save thousands of dollars' worth of taxes.[3]

Although the sale of untested drugs is illegal in the US and UK, manufacturers have circumvented legislation by labelling products "not for human consumption".[citation needed] Consumers still buy and use the products as drugs but vendors cannot be prosecuted as they have no control over the consumer after the point of sale.

You can view these and more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

[dunfiddlin]

Here are some example of behavior that if I follow your line of reasoning are acceptable:

Define acceptable! And acceptable to whom? I merely said that they cannot be authoritatively be declared 'wrong'.

All your examples are simply illustrations of how appallingly badly legislation is put together by all Governments/Authorities, especially democratic ones. As long as that's the case then I don't blame anyone for exploiting the failure of highly paid officials to say what they mean and mean what they say. Indeed in many cases I rather admire those who have the nous to turn the incompetence of legislators to their advantage. You obviously don't share that view which is fair enough but I can't help but think that your ire should be directed towards those who allowed such asinine laws to come into existence rather than those who are simply making the best deal with the massive piles of ridiculous regulations under which they are buried that they can. (And are you really trying to justify the Chicken Tax, as blatantly unfair a piece of protectionism as can be imagined?)

[dunfiddlin]

This is in the news today ...

The call comes after figures showed the Scottish Ambulance Service has been issued with more than 2,200 speeding tickets in less than two years.

In order to avoid a fine, ambulance staff must fill out a form to prove they were attending an emergency at the time the vehicle was caught speeding.

The cost of issuing fines that won't get paid and the bureaucracy involved in providing proof of exemption which both come out of the public purse is not revealed!

[szlamany]

I call that abuse of power - and karma gonna get you anyway...

[dunfiddlin]

Ah yes. Karma. The Oriental version of the Deuteronomic Fallacy!

[TysonLPrice]

I can't help but think that your ire should be directed towards those who allowed such asinine laws to come into existence rather than those who are simply making the best deal with the massive piles of ridiculous regulations under which they are buried that they can.

I've done my best to keep this simple

You have been the one making deep philosophical references and convoluted justifications. I wanted it as simple as a playground. But, the people that are using the loop holes probably are thinking the same things as you.

I'm not so naive as to think it is as simple as I want to keep the concept. Hopefully you see my point, whether you agree or not.

I just pulled the examples from the definition of loophole in the link. I really didn't do more then scan them myself.

[dunfiddlin]

You have been the one making deep philosophical references and convoluted justifications.

I'm just pointing out that they exist. They should be in the mind of legislators at every stage of law making (rather than how quickly they get the Bill passed because they've got tickets for the opera/game/illegal dog fight, for example). Sadly they never are which is why we get so much bad law and lawyers make so much money pointing it out. Democracy may have many advantages (although, like Plato, I confess I struggle to find them myself) but it is a particularly stupid way to make law!!!

[TysonLPrice]

I'm just pointing out that they exist. They should be in the mind of legislators at every stage of law making (rather than how quickly they get the Bill passed because they've got tickets for the opera/game/illegal dog fight, for example). Sadly they never are which is why we get so much bad law and lawyers make so much money pointing it out. Democracy may have many advantages (although, like Plato, I confess I struggle to find them myself) but it is a particularly stupid way to make law!!!

We may have found something to agree on

[Shaggy Hiker]

I've done my best to keep this simple

And we've done ours to complicate that simplicity.

[SJWhiteley]

In a black and white world there are no opinions only facts. ...

The law is black and white.

While many try to paint [laws] with 'intent' - and perhaps justifiably so* - without the ability to define precisely what is and is not, then the law completely fails to perform its objective.

Additionally, the intent of tax laws is not to make sure everyone pays taxes, but a method of revenue to pay for government functions as required by (in the US) the Constitution. Consider, if tax laws were to make site everyone pays taxes, where are there so many people who don't?

[TysonLPrice]

The law is black and white.

While many try to paint [laws] with 'intent' - and perhaps justifiably so* - without the ability to define precisely what is and is not, then the law completely fails to perform its objective.

Additionally, the intent of tax laws is not to make sure everyone pays taxes, but a method of revenue to pay for government functions as required by (in the US) the Constitution. Consider, if tax laws were to make site everyone pays taxes, where are there so many people who don't?

That would be a good question for the people in jail for tax evasion. My guess it is a matter of if you get caught or not, decide to pay the penalties and back taxes, etc. The IRS will generally try and keep you out of jail. There are thousands of people sitting in jail right now for tax evasion.

That really wasn't the question though. I'm real close to just giving up on this thread