Adam's Reply: The Rich and Taxes

I must always salute Adam and his philosophical fortitude.

Adam has left a new comment on your post "The Rich and Taxation":

Thoughts:

1) I'm fairly certain that most informed do not hold (R). Just because someone is not struggling with the wealth they have is not a sufficient reason for their being morally/practically obligated to do give up a greater percentage of their wealth, even if they can afford to do so. In any case, some have held worse arguments before so perhaps some do hold (R). However, I suspect it doesn't accurately capture their view.

2) The logic is incorrect. There are really two worries here. First, the argument seems to be analyzed via first-order logic, but actually involves a deontic premise (premise (2)). Second, even the analysis in first-order logic is incorrect. Focus on the latter first. In order for Premise (2) to be false the consequent must be false while the antecedent is true. Likewise, with (3). When analyzed using in Deontic logic, we first have to adopt a particular interpretation. The interpretation we choose will tell us what it takes for a conditional roughly like 'if x can y, then x should z' to be true (I'm leaving the deontic operators where they appear in the English sentence which hides scope and other things).

3) I don't see any equivocation between the premises nor the premises and conclusion.

4) 'Should' and 'ought' have the same meaning. If someone thinks you should do x they think you ought to do x, unless they fail to understand the terms.

5) 'Can' and 'should' do not mean the same thing. But, I don't see why that matters. As you point out, (2) is underwritten by some ethical or practical argument. So, the derivation of the consequent of (2) from the antecedent of (2) is more than just synonymy. But, just showing that they are not synonymous doesn't undermine the argument that underwrites (2), since, I take it the argument would not appeal to synonymy...right?

6) It's probably true that 'can' does not always entail 'should'. I can shoot my neighbors, but I shouldn't, is true as far as I can see. But, be able to do what is morally right seems to entail that I should. I take most would think that the rich can afford to pay more taxes. Separately, they think that persons deserve equality along some morally important axis. They also think that an increase in revenue and a particular distribution scheme would achieve this (or move toward achieving this). They reason, then, that there are folks in a position to help achieve the morally better state of affairs and so they should. (This is the more nuanced position I hinted at above, be it correct or incorrect).

7) It is unclear how the numbers show that the rich pay their fair share. As a start, we need a reasonable view about what fairness comes too here. It is implausible that in this context fairness means 'paying more than others'. Fairness seems to at least be about a balance of the burdens and benefits, where those burdens and benefits include more than monetary burdens and benefits whatever they include. I take it that the worry folks struggle with is that this balance is off and that the wealthy are in a position to do something about this. Should they? Perhaps that's an open question that the numbers pointed to don't answer.