The law passed by Congress on January 3, 2013 to avert the
across-the-board tax increases and “sequester” (i.e., across-the-board budget
cuts) was “stuffed with special provisions helping specific companies and
industries.” While many of the provisions would increase the U.S. Government’s
debt, at least one would decrease it.
Is the latter any more ethical because it is in line with the more general
interest in reducing the federal debt? Put another way, does the end justify
the means? Do good consequences justify
bad motives? These are extremely
difficult questions. The best I can do here is suggest how they can be
approached by analysis of a particular case study.
The full essay is at "Aiding a Contributor."
The full essay is at "Aiding a Contributor."
