Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Methodology

An 18-statement survey was constructed and distributed via the Internet to the ­members of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, the American Association of Philosophy Teachers, Philosophy in Europe, and PHILOSOP. A total of 39 responses were received.

This study could be criticized on several counts. The sample size could have been larger. However, a sample size of 39 is sufficiently large to reach tentative conclusions. Another criticism might be the method used to select the sample. Participants were self-selecting rather than random, leaving open the possibility that the sample was not representative of the general philosophy professor population.

Only nine individuals identified themselves as female, which makes the female statistics highly tentative. However, the responses for the females in this survey were consistent with other surveys (Gupta and McGee 2010; McGee, Alver and Alver 2008; McGee and Andres 2009; McGee and Bose 2009; McGee and Cohn 2008; McGee and Guo 2007; McGee and Lingle 2008; McGee and López 2007, 2008), which also reported that the female scores were higher than the male scores.

Tables 7.1–7.3 show the demographic data. The sample was mostly male, mostly Caucasian, with a smattering of different religious beliefs, with Christian having the largest plurality.

Table 7.1 Responses by gender
Full size table
Table 7.2 Responses by ethnicity
Full size table
Table 7.3 Responses by religious affiliation
Full size table

Table 7.4 shows the 18 statements and the mean scores for each statement. The overall mean score was 5.36, indicating a fair degree of aversion to tax evasion.

Table 7.4 Summary of responses (1  =  strongly agree; 7  =  strongly disagree)
Full size table

Table 7.5 ranks the arguments based on mean score from strongest to weakest. The range of scores is 3.82–6.46, which indicates a wide range of attitudes, depending on which statement is being considered.

Table 7.5 Ranking (1  =  strongly agree; 7  =  strongly disagree)
Full size table

Table 7.6 splits the responses into three categories, based on mean score:

Table 7.6 Range of scores (1  =  strongly agree; 7  =  strongly disagree)
Full size table

  • 1–2 Slight opposition to tax evasion

  • 3–5 Moderate opposition to tax evasion

  • 6–7 Strong opposition to tax evasion

The category having the highest percentage was the strong opposition (6–7) category for 15 of the 18 statements. The slight opposition (1–2) category had the highest percentage for the Jews in Nazi Germany statement. The moderate opposition group (3–5) had the highest percentage for the other two human rights statements.

Table 7.7 compares the mean scores for each statement by gender.

Table 7.7 Comparison of male and female scores (1  =  strongly agree; 7  =  strongly disagree)
Full size table

The female mean scores were higher for all 18 cases and the total mean scores were more than a full point apart (5.07 for men vs. 6.21 for women), which leads one to fairly conclude that female philosophy professors are significantly more averse to tax evasion than are male philosophy professors. However, for those nitpickers who insist on statistical testing even in cases where the a priori conclusion is obvious, Table 7.8 provides the relevant data.

Table 7.8 Statistical comparison of male and female mean data
Full size table

The p-value is 0.00034, which indicates that female philosophy professors are significantly more averse to tax evasion than are male philosophy professors.

Concluding Comments

Although the sample size was small, some useful information was gained. The survey discovered which arguments to justify tax evasion were the strongest and which were the weakest in the eyes of philosophy professors. It also found that female philosophy professors were significantly more opposed to tax evasion than were male philosophy professors. It is hoped that this study will pique interest in the views of philosophy professors on this topic and perhaps lead to other, more comprehensive studies.