Italian Tax Mores is a case study that follows the approach of increasing the tax revenue. The Italian tax approach feels they deserve more tax amount and the American banking system struggles to deal with a greedy Italian tax authorities. I will be explaining about the Italian taxes in regards to a Kantian approach based on ethical reasoning. The Kantian ethical theory calls for this course of action under the circumstances of forming a judgment about the case study using Kant’s three categorical imperatives. I will be formulating an argument based on why the American style tax system was morally correct, and how the Italian system needs to make changes to the new American banking system in Italy. In a brief description of the Italian Tax Mores, the case study starts out by saying that the Italian tax system and the United States tax system are similar, since they both only have “legal tax structure and tax rates” (Kelly 54). There are two options in regards to filing taxes, the American style and the Italian style. Each of these options have sub-option to back up the information. The American style was created for the Italian government to provide extra taxes, which the firm was eventually …show more content…
The Americans started off on an immoral basis by not adhering to the Italian local customs. The local regulations decrease may cause a tax burden. In the end, the general manager sent the Italian revenue service a check for the full amount of taxes due, even though the due date for the payment was almost six months later (Kelly 56). Paying this money resulted in penalty and it should have been avoided. The only option was to fire the American manager and hire an Italian manager who would follow the company’s commands of the Italian advisors. This is ethical wrong because the Italian banking system did not treat the American managers with respect for the persons and the
Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.
Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that
Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as
In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.
Punishment is the suffering, pain, or loss that serves at retribution. Others also say it is “the authoritative imposition of something unpleasant on a person in response to a behavior deemed to be wrong by an individual or group” (Hugo & McAnany, 2010). Some question when and why we should punish. Though easy to state, this question is difficult to answer and has lead to a variety of models of punishment. In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice.
The first step under Trevino and Nelson is to gather the facts. In this case, the manager was not aware of or chose to ignore the facts surrounding the Italian tax system. The knowledge that the bank had with respect to the Italian tax system was therefore incomplete. The facts in this case included the mores surrounding the Italian system of tax collection and negotiation. The manager was informed that it would be advisable to declare a low amount of income and was subsequently informed of the need to hire a commercialista to handle the negotiations. The manager failed to heed this advice, in particular because he thought that these practices were unethical. The manager should have gathered the facts with respect to the mores and customs of the Italian tax collection system.
7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.
This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.
He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from
It seems like the only sector of Italy that has thrived is its underground black market. These lucrative and subversive activities account for over 25 percent of the country’s GDP. This puts a burden on the Italian government since all this lost revenue is not subject to taxation. Italy’s chief of state, or president is Giorgio Napolitano, who has served since May 15, 2006. Napolitano’s main responsibilities are to approve the Council of Ministers and to provide the prime minister with advice. Berlusconi leads the Forza Italia, a Christian-democratic, liberal majority political party in Italy. Forza Italia was founded in December 1993 and was merged into The People of Freedom March 2009.
Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.
This analysis seeks to explicate the fundamental issues in Kant’s philosophy, which include duty and reason. The examination of the movie Gone Baby Gone is viewed in the context of morality, as it shows an escapade of child abduction. While doing so, one of the fundamental questions to address in this submission is the distinction between what is good, and that, which is morally right. In addressing this question, the maxims by Emmanuel Kant form the important part of this study.
Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.