= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kyrorh comments on Value ethics vs. agency ethics - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
It's about what you tax, not what for.
The children have potential agency. I didn't account for that in my original post but I consider it relevant.
It is interesting precicely because it is not already covered by some other concept. In my original phrasing morality would be about determining that someone is a defector, while the right decision would be about whether or not defecting against the defector is the dominant strategy. Killing one guy to save millions is the right decision because I can safely assume that no one will defect against me in return. Killing one to save five is not so clear cut. In that case people might kill me in order to not be killed by me.
That would be the 'necessary evil' argument. However since I believe taxes can be raised morally I don't consider the evil that is current forms of taxation to be necessary.
But then the tax can exceed the actual value of the land, in which case the net value of the land becomes negative. This is troubling. Imagine for example that due to taxes increasing or your income decreasing you no longer have the means to pay for your land. But you can't sell it either because it's value is negative! So you have to pay someone to take it away, but you might not have enough money. Moreover, if the size of the tax is disconnected from the actual value of the land, your "moral" justification for the tax falls apart.
OK, so you need to introduce new rules about interaction with "potential agents".
I don't object to the concept of "violating agency is bad", I'm objecting to equating it with "morality" since this use of terminology is confusing. On the other hand, names are not a matter of great importance.
Even if taxes can be raised consistently with your agency rule (assuming it receives a more precise formulation), it doesn't follow it is the correct way to raise taxes since there are other considerations that have to be taken into account, which might be stronger.