Morality is a general rule that when followed offers a good utilitarian default.
I’m not entirely sure what “a good utilitarian default” means, but I suspect I disagree, since (I strongly suspect) I am not a utilitarian.
-- Applying for welfare benefits when you make $110K per year, certifying you make no money. Reason: You should not obtain your fellow citizens’ money via fraud.
It’s not clear to me that deserving or needing your fellow citizens’ money is what entitles you to their money (assuming anything does), so I don’t think I entirely agree. This is one of those cases where it feels to me like I’d be doing something wrong, but trying to pin down exactly what that something is, is difficult.
-- “Officer Friendly, that man right there, the weird white guy, robbed/assaulted/(fill in unpleasant crime here) me..” Reason: It is not nice to try to get people imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.
“not nice” is quite an understatement, so yes, I agree.
-- “Yes it is my testimony that Steve Infanticider was with me all night, and not killing babies. So you shouldn’t keep him in custody, your honor.” Reason: Even if you dislike the criminal justice system, it seems like some respect is warranted.
Why is some respect warranted? What warrants it?
-- “No, SEC investigators, I, Bernie Madoff, have a totally real way of making exactly 1.5% a month, every month, in perpetuity.” Reason: You shouldn’t compound prior harm to your fellow humans.
I neither understand finance well enough to grasp this situation, nor do I have any idea what “compound prior harm” means, so I can’t comment on this one.
-- “I suffer no sudden blackouts, Department of Motor Vehicles.” Reason: You should not endanger your fellow drivers.
Agreed.
It seems like the pattern so far is: lying to the government is clearly bad when it would clearly cause harm to your fellow humans. Otherwise, the situation is much more murky. And I think that’s consistent with the way I interpreted Eliezer’s comment, which was something to this effect:
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with lying to the government, per se (the way there might be with lying to a person, regardless of whether your lie harmed them directly and tangibly); however, lying to the government may well have other consequences, which are themselves bad, making the lie immoral on those grounds.”
That is, I don’t think Eliezer was saying that if you lie to the government, that somehow automatically counterbalances any and all negative consequences of that act merely because the act qualifies, among other things, as a lie to the government.
Let’s see if we can’t apply this principle to the rest of your examples:
I also think that in the U.S. you shouldn’t lie on your taxes
I would certainly never attach my name to any suggestion that I endorse lying to the IRS.
lie to get on a jury with the purpose of nullifying
This seems fine to me.
lie about bank robberies you witness
Depends a whole lot on the circumstances. I can’t make a blanket comment here.
lie about your qualifications to build the bridge, lie about the materials you intend to use to build the bridge, lie about the need for construction change orders
Such lies might very well harm people, and so are bad on those grounds.
lie about the number of hours worked...
This does seem bad for rule-consequentialist reasons.
Because the government has power over you, you get no moral demerits for lying to them? Nuh-uh.
Seems reasonable to me, actually. You might get moral demerits for the consequences of your lie (insofar as the untruth might harm actual humans), but lying to the government is not wrong in itself.
I also think that in the U.S. you shouldn’t lie on your taxes
I would certainly never attach my name to any suggestion that I endorse lying to the IRS.
This example particularly amuses me, since this is the first year in a while where I won’t have to lie on my federal tax return about my marital status, and I’m really happy about that.
No doubt! I do wonder what JRMayne would say about cases like yours, though. To me it seems obvious that you did nothing wrong in those previous years.
(nods) I think even by the government’s standards, I didn’t actually do anything wrong. Come to that, I’m not sure I was even lying, technically speaking, as I’m not sure if filing single-head-of-household is technically asserting that I’m unmarried in the first place. It just felt like it.
Assuming it is asserting that you’re not married, it’s asserting that you’re not married by the Federal tax definition. You weren’t, so it’s not a lie.
I neither understand finance well enough to grasp this situation, nor do I have any idea what “compound prior harm” means, so I can’t comment on this one.
Bernie Madoff is a stockbroker who ran a famous Ponzi scheme that came to light a few years ago, at the height of the financial crisis. Judging from the Wikipedia page, the fraud wasn’t a terribly complicated one: basically, he was taking investors’ money and hanging onto it rather than investing it, while fabricating (unusually consistent) paper investment returns for his clients and paying them out of pocket if they ever wanted to cash out.
Yes, I know who Bernie Madoff is, I’m just not clear on what are the implications of the quoted statement to the government. What does it mean? How was it false? Are there legal obligations to disclose something in such a case? What are they? What are the consequences (practical, not legal) of that lie? Who is harmed by the lie? Who is harmed, on the other hand, by the actual fact which you are lying about? Etc.
I just don’t have anywhere near enough context for any of this.
What does it mean? How was it false? Are there legal obligations to disclose something in such a case? What are they? What are the consequences (practical, not legal) of that lie? Who is harmed by the lie? Who is harmed, on the other hand, by the actual fact which you are lying about?
It means that Madoff was claiming he’d invested his clients’ money at an annual rate of return of… let’s see… a little under 20% (Wikipedia cites 10.5 to 15) when he’d actually had it in the bank at a RoR in the low single digits. Because of that, there would have been an increasingly large gap (probably around 10% annually, compounded over the life of his fund) between the figures he’d cited to his clients and the actual money he’d have available to return to them, and if and when enough of them decided to collect, they’d have found themselves short in proportion to that gap plus whatever Madoff took out for himself (a sum in the millions).
This is straightforward fraud: Madoff promised a service, deliberately failed to deliver, and pocketed compensation for it anyway. The harm done by Madoff extracting compensation is obvious (it’s basically theft); the harm done by him not doing his job is a little more complicated, but also substantial once you take into account opportunity cost. I don’t know the exact legal requirements.
If you don’t mind a bit of followup explanation: where does the lie to the government come into this? Like, clearly Madoff defrauded his clients and that’s terrible, but I’m still not clear on the role of the disclosure to government institutions (or lack thereof). Is it just that the government in this case is the channel by which one disclose information about operations to one’s clients, i.e. the government acting on behalf of the clients? Or is it something else...?
The SEC’s basically acting as an enforcement body and a standards organization in this case. Lying to them allowed Madoff to perpetuate his fraud, and perhaps more importantly to legitimize it; he wouldn’t likely have been able to manage billions of dollars if he’d been operating outside the regulatory framework. I’m not sure I’d call that intrinsically immoral, even with my deontology emulator on, but in this context I think I’d be comfortable saying that it acted to exacerbate the situation.
It looks like he’d tried to stay out of their sights as much as possible, though. Judging from Wikipedia, most of the investigation here was carried out by his competitors.
I’m not entirely sure what “a good utilitarian default” means, but I suspect I disagree, since (I strongly suspect) I am not a utilitarian.
It’s not clear to me that deserving or needing your fellow citizens’ money is what entitles you to their money (assuming anything does), so I don’t think I entirely agree. This is one of those cases where it feels to me like I’d be doing something wrong, but trying to pin down exactly what that something is, is difficult.
“not nice” is quite an understatement, so yes, I agree.
Why is some respect warranted? What warrants it?
I neither understand finance well enough to grasp this situation, nor do I have any idea what “compound prior harm” means, so I can’t comment on this one.
Agreed.
It seems like the pattern so far is: lying to the government is clearly bad when it would clearly cause harm to your fellow humans. Otherwise, the situation is much more murky. And I think that’s consistent with the way I interpreted Eliezer’s comment, which was something to this effect:
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with lying to the government, per se (the way there might be with lying to a person, regardless of whether your lie harmed them directly and tangibly); however, lying to the government may well have other consequences, which are themselves bad, making the lie immoral on those grounds.”
That is, I don’t think Eliezer was saying that if you lie to the government, that somehow automatically counterbalances any and all negative consequences of that act merely because the act qualifies, among other things, as a lie to the government.
Let’s see if we can’t apply this principle to the rest of your examples:
I would certainly never attach my name to any suggestion that I endorse lying to the IRS.
This seems fine to me.
Depends a whole lot on the circumstances. I can’t make a blanket comment here.
Such lies might very well harm people, and so are bad on those grounds.
This does seem bad for rule-consequentialist reasons.
Seems reasonable to me, actually. You might get moral demerits for the consequences of your lie (insofar as the untruth might harm actual humans), but lying to the government is not wrong in itself.
This example particularly amuses me, since this is the first year in a while where I won’t have to lie on my federal tax return about my marital status, and I’m really happy about that.
That’s not lying. To see this try tabooing “marital status”.
No doubt! I do wonder what JRMayne would say about cases like yours, though. To me it seems obvious that you did nothing wrong in those previous years.
(nods) I think even by the government’s standards, I didn’t actually do anything wrong. Come to that, I’m not sure I was even lying, technically speaking, as I’m not sure if filing single-head-of-household is technically asserting that I’m unmarried in the first place. It just felt like it.
Assuming it is asserting that you’re not married, it’s asserting that you’re not married by the Federal tax definition. You weren’t, so it’s not a lie.
Bernie Madoff is a stockbroker who ran a famous Ponzi scheme that came to light a few years ago, at the height of the financial crisis. Judging from the Wikipedia page, the fraud wasn’t a terribly complicated one: basically, he was taking investors’ money and hanging onto it rather than investing it, while fabricating (unusually consistent) paper investment returns for his clients and paying them out of pocket if they ever wanted to cash out.
Yes, I know who Bernie Madoff is, I’m just not clear on what are the implications of the quoted statement to the government. What does it mean? How was it false? Are there legal obligations to disclose something in such a case? What are they? What are the consequences (practical, not legal) of that lie? Who is harmed by the lie? Who is harmed, on the other hand, by the actual fact which you are lying about? Etc.
I just don’t have anywhere near enough context for any of this.
It means that Madoff was claiming he’d invested his clients’ money at an annual rate of return of… let’s see… a little under 20% (Wikipedia cites 10.5 to 15) when he’d actually had it in the bank at a RoR in the low single digits. Because of that, there would have been an increasingly large gap (probably around 10% annually, compounded over the life of his fund) between the figures he’d cited to his clients and the actual money he’d have available to return to them, and if and when enough of them decided to collect, they’d have found themselves short in proportion to that gap plus whatever Madoff took out for himself (a sum in the millions).
This is straightforward fraud: Madoff promised a service, deliberately failed to deliver, and pocketed compensation for it anyway. The harm done by Madoff extracting compensation is obvious (it’s basically theft); the harm done by him not doing his job is a little more complicated, but also substantial once you take into account opportunity cost. I don’t know the exact legal requirements.
Ok, thanks. That makes sense.
If you don’t mind a bit of followup explanation: where does the lie to the government come into this? Like, clearly Madoff defrauded his clients and that’s terrible, but I’m still not clear on the role of the disclosure to government institutions (or lack thereof). Is it just that the government in this case is the channel by which one disclose information about operations to one’s clients, i.e. the government acting on behalf of the clients? Or is it something else...?
The SEC’s basically acting as an enforcement body and a standards organization in this case. Lying to them allowed Madoff to perpetuate his fraud, and perhaps more importantly to legitimize it; he wouldn’t likely have been able to manage billions of dollars if he’d been operating outside the regulatory framework. I’m not sure I’d call that intrinsically immoral, even with my deontology emulator on, but in this context I think I’d be comfortable saying that it acted to exacerbate the situation.
It looks like he’d tried to stay out of their sights as much as possible, though. Judging from Wikipedia, most of the investigation here was carried out by his competitors.
Understood. Yes, given this explanation I think I agree that lying to the SEC was immoral in this case.