Q&A: A Categorical Imperative in Jewish Law
A Categorical Imperative in Jewish Law
Question
I heard you say several times that if not for the categorical imperative, there would be no moral problem with tax evasion. From the standpoint of Jewish law, is it considered theft even without the categorical imperative? That is, even though there is no moral problem in it, is it still defined as theft because I am stealing from the public purse?
Answer
You are not stealing; rather, you are not paying what you were obligated to pay. One could perhaps speak about using public services as a kind of theft, since the tax evader did not pay for them.
When I spoke about the categorical imperative, I explained that even if I evade taxes, the state treasury does not actually lack anything, and therefore without Kant—when we are talking about consequentialist morality—according to that approach there is no moral problem in nonpayment.
Discussion on Answer
Of course. The law of the kingdom is law, and the authority of the town leaders.
And from the standpoint of Jewish law, is there an obligation to pay? (If we set aside for a moment the fact that you are using services you did not pay for.)