Morality towards the state
Hello,
Some argue that because our country is full of corruption and injustice
This essentially deprives her of moral reciprocity – and therefore it is permissible or even commanded to deceive her.
In their opinion, they are morally unfair, bringing evidence that the parties are using state funding for advertising purposes, etc. without returning it, and illegally. Of course, there are many more examples of unfair politicians, unfair laws - I'm sure there are facts that support the claim...
I personally think that just because many people do wrong doesn't allow me to do wrong.
They claimed against me that I was saving the funds from unfair use if I cheated and took illegally.
What would you argue about such a thing?
Do you have a post about this?
Thanks in advance.
A valid argument in principle, but the doses and proportionality are important. You can break the dishes for any scrap of money you don't think you can. That's not reasonable. The question is whether, at a given level of corruption, it is justified to destroy the country? You must weigh the alternatives against each other and apply the categorical imperative (what if everyone did this).
https://mikyab.net/שות/סירוף-למילואים/(In comments on the response to the categorical order)
What's the big difference? Apparently, here too, if we all behave this way, then the state will understand that it is no longer possible to play with our money however it wants and will begin to come to its senses...
What is the difference between what and what? When we all do this, the country will not learn any lesson, it simply will not exist. I wrote that it is a question of doses.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer