The debate surrounding the moral parity thesis and its implications for welfare and taxation is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides. In response to Matt Zwolinski’s critique of this thesis, it is important to consider whether the idea truly suggests that welfare and taxation are morally illegitimate. While Zwolinski argues that absolutist deontologists would see these actions as violations of property rights, leading to morally illegitimate outcomes, this perspective is not universally accepted.
Absolutist deontologists believe that certain rights and duties should never be violated, regardless of the circumstances. However, this rigid stance can lead to absurd conclusions, as illustrated by thought experiments such as being trapped on a balcony or facing starvation with no options but theft. In these extreme scenarios, it becomes clear that sometimes rights violations can be justified in order to prevent greater harm.
Prominent defenders of the moral parity thesis, such as Michael Huemer, acknowledge that rights violations can be justified in certain circumstances. Huemer recognizes that stealing to provide social welfare or to save a life may be justified, challenging the notion that all property rights violations are inherently wrong. This perspective aligns with the idea that sometimes, rights violations can be justified for the greater good.
When considering the role of children in these moral dilemmas, it is important to note that the moral parity thesis does not dictate a specific political philosophy based solely on adult interactions. Rather, it emphasizes that agents of the state do not have special moral exemptions simply by virtue of their position. This leaves room for special obligations and responsibilities when children are involved, without compromising the core principles of moral parity.
Furthermore, practical considerations may also support the implementation of welfare programs by the government. While justified thefts to feed starving children may have unintended consequences, such as burdening individuals like Billy the Baker, a well-run welfare program could alleviate these uncertainties and distribute costs more fairly among society. By sharing the costs of justified actions, no single individual bears an undue burden, promoting a more equitable distribution of resources.
Despite the potential justifications for welfare and taxation under the moral parity thesis, it is important to acknowledge that not all government programs may meet this standard. While feeding starving orphans may be justifiable, subsidizing the interests of the wealthy or encouraging risky behavior through subsidies may not align with the principles of moral parity. Thus, while the moral parity thesis may allow for certain exceptions, it also highlights the need for a critical evaluation of government actions to ensure they are truly justified by ethical considerations.
