Do tariffs violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity?

[o_mlly]

When you write “All other things being equal” that is the problem. True free trade means just that. No barriers into any markets.

The logic above escapes me. And your claim that all tariffs are evil remains unsupported. Do you have a citation that tariffs are inherently evil?

Just a tid-bit. In Catholic social teaching the ends DO NOT justify means.

Correction. In Catholic moral theology, the ends most certainly do justify the means if the means are not intrinsically evil. Tariffs, as I explained, are not intrinsically evil.

 

[DENNYINMI]

How does the threat or actual imposition of tariffs on some of the poorest countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Vietnam, be a moral means to an end?
This should be interesting especially when dealing with economically unequal trading partners?
Anyone?

 

[philipl]

Why do I need a citation? Do you think this forum is some type of peer review? If you dont like the word evil, (BTW, I said they are evil. Not intrinsically evil.) then lets go with wrong(I still think they are evil as defined by the church They accomplish nothing. china several limits usa trade into their markets. yet trade barriers for China into the US market might as well not even be on the books they are so easy to follow. The same applies to the EU. 50 years ago when this started developing countries claimed their markets needed protecting from the power of the USA. Now the same countries are claiming it not their fault they can produce items cheaper than the USA. I want all trade barriers removed. gone 100% then we will have free trade. I allow a developing country to set barriers into their markets only allows to create a false economy.

 

[o_mlly]

Why do I need a citation? Do you think this forum is some type of peer review?

Because our host is “Catholic Answers.” The only legitimate argument when disagreeing appeals to the authority of the Church (not peers).

 

[DENNYINMI]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mythbuster1]

Subsidiarity is the principle of handling issues by the lowest competent authority. When dealing with international trade, the lowest competent authority is the nations engaging in trade or such international organization as they request to mediate between them.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Subsidiarity is the principle of handling issues by the lowest competent authority. When dealing with international trade, the lowest competent authority is the nations engaging in trade or such international organization as they request to mediate between them.

The lowest competent authority is individuals and firms, not the government. If I buy a screwdriver from China, nobody else is affected, so no need for government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Correction. In Catholic moral theology, the ends most certainly do justify the means if the means are not intrinsically evil. Tariffs, as I explained, are not intrinsically evil.

The complete statement of the Catholic principle ofter referred to as “the ends do not justify the means” does not make reference to intrinsic evil. It refers to to any evil. That is, we may not do evil so that good may come of it. So the ends do not justify any action that is evil. If the action is not evil, then it does not need any justification. However, I must agree that tariffs do not necessarily constitute an evil. I just wanted to clarify the understanding of “ends do not justify the means.”

 

[DENNYINMI]

However, I must agree that tariffs do not necessarily constitute an evil. I just wanted to clarify the understanding of “ends do not justify the means.”

Tariffs like taxes in and of themselves do not constitute evil, it’s how they are utilized that may or may not be evil…Example: Purposefully avoiding your fair share of taxes when you are wealthy beyond measure would be evil…KInd of like money in and of itself is not evil…It’s the love of money that is the root of it all…So when we impose tariffs on poor countries for an across the board appearance, what say you???..Should competition be fair in the world of free markets???

 

[HarryStotle]

o_mlly:

Correction. In Catholic moral theology, the ends most certainly do justify the means if the means are not intrinsically evil. Tariffs, as I explained, are not intrinsically evil.

The complete statement of the Catholic principle ofter referred to as “the ends do not justify the means” does not make reference to intrinsic evil. It refers to to any evil. That is, we may not do evil so that good may come of it. So the ends do not justify any action that is evil. If the action is not evil, then it does not need any justification.

I’ve never been a fan of this way of formulating what might be a legitimate idea as a “complete statement.” If it were stated in a more technically correct way as, Good ends don’t necessarily nor always justify any or all means, it would be closer to being considered a moral principle, of sorts.

Most people would agree that cutting off someone’s leg is an evil act though, admittedly, not an intrinsically evil act. So, you might claim, according to your NO possible ends would justify any evil act, that “the ends do not [ever?] justify the means.”

Okay, but a surgeon amputating a leg to stop malignant cancer has an end in mind (saving the person) that would justify the evil of removing one of their legs.

“No, no, no!” you would insist, “Cutting a leg off magically becomes good when a surgeon does it to save the patient, so losing a leg isn’t really an evil, in that instance.”

Well, it seems to me that you haven’t used an end to merely justify the means, you have used an end to make the formerly evil means into a distinctively positive good. You haven’t merely justified the means, you have out and out transformed it.

Ergo, whether it is justifying the means or not is turned into a very academic (in the very worst sense of that word) question that is merely making the case that the ends don’t justify the means unless, of course, when they do justify the means, and that is when we can magically turn the means into a positive good. The moral problem dissipates through a little application of verbal mumbo jumbo.

Not much of a “complete statement,” as far as I can tell. Nor is our understanding very much “clarified.”

 

[o_mlly]

The complete statement of the Catholic principle ofter referred to as “the ends do not justify the means” does not make reference to intrinsic evil.

Yes, it does. From the CCC:
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.

The end in view or intention is one of the three fonts determining the morality of a human act. Therefore, as I wrote, the end, which must be good, justifies the act.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is abetter explanation of “ends do not justify the means.”

 

[o_mlly]

Here is abetter explanation of “ends do not justify the means.”

John Chan appears a committed Catholic but, unlike the Catechism, has no teaching authority. Better to stay with primary sources.

This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. _
_ APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

 

[HarryStotle]

Here is abetter explanation of “ends do not justify the means.”

I read it. It doesn’t explain your rendering of ends do not justify any evil means.

It appears to simply re-classify “evil” means to necessary means when good ends do, in fact, justify them, while not being very clear on when some evil means are not justified by the good ends.

Overall, the “complete statement” of the principle you claimed would clarify things just doesn’t.

Sure, we can all get behind not all means can be justified by good ends, but that doesn’t imply good ends cannot justify some means, even those which, on their own, seem evil. You haven’t clarified, for example, how the amputation of a leg is not, in itself, an evil for the person having had their leg amputated. Sure the doctor wasn’t committing a moral evil, but that is not decided independently of the ends as if the ends have nothing to do with determining whether means are justified in the first place. Of course, ends are often warrants for carrying out the means to achieve them. The question remains, when do ends justify means and when do they not?

I would agree with @o_mlly that intrinsically evil acts cannot ever be justified by ends, but that is merely saying that in no conceivable moral situations can those means be justified. The supposed “ends do not justify evil means” doesn’t help very much to determine when means are evil, and when ends can and do justify means.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Understand that this whole side-discussion is unrelated to the OP topic, especially since I agreed that tariffs are not necessarily evil. But I will venture one more answer on this side topic.

The context of an act sounds a lot like the end or intention of the act, but there is an important difference. You mentioned cutting off someone’s leg. If the context is that leg is infected and would likely kill the person whose leg it is, that person would likely agree to the amputation. That would not be the case of good end justifying an evil means. It would be a good means serving a good end. If however that leg was cut off from a unwilling prisoner so that the veins could be harvested to be used in a transplant operation for someone else, that would have been a case of an evil means attempting (and failing) to justify an good end.

 

[o_mlly]

The context of an act sounds a lot like the end or intention of the act …

No, the context of an act refers to the circumstantial font. Circumstances do not change the moral quality of a human act. They only mitigate, intensify or eliminate blame or merit.

That would not be the case of good end justifying an evil means. …

No, the object of an act (the first font) is independent of the second font (intent). Intent does not change the object of the act.

Better to start a new thread if you wish to continue.

 

[HarryStotle]

Understand that this whole side-discussion is unrelated to the OP topic, especially since I agreed that tariffs are not necessarily evil. But I will venture one more answer on this side topic.

The context of an act sounds a lot like the end or intention of the act, but there is an important difference. You mentioned cutting off someone’s leg. If the context is that leg is infected and would likely kill the person whose leg it is, that person would likely agree to the amputation. That would not be the case of good end justifying an evil means. It would be a good means serving a good end. If however that leg was cut off from a unwilling prisoner so that the veins could be harvested to be used in a transplant operation for someone else, that would have been a case of an evil means attempting (and failing) to justify an good end.

So your point here is that the possibility that a greater evil (infected leg and death of the patient) may occur can justify a means that is a lesser evil (amputation). That would seem to undermine your position because if avoiding an evil end (death) can justify an evil means (amputation), why could it not be possible for a good end (extending the life of a person, for example) to justify some evil means (amputation), but not necessarily all of them?

You are simply repackaging a good end (extending life) as the avoidance of a greater evil (death) in order to get around your interlocutor’s point.

War, for example, which is an evil means in any objective calculus can sometimes be justified by the possibility of achieving a much greater good end, relatively speaking.

This also takes us back to the old debate of whether it is permissible to tell a lie to a Gestapo officer to save a Jewish family taking refuge in your home. Telling lies is morally wrong but can be justified under some circumstances if a much greater evil is avoided (death or torture of the family) – conversely stated as a much greater good (extending the life and safety of the family) being ensured.

Ergo, your point that a good end never justifies any evil means isn’t established, it is undermined by your very example.

 

[Theo520]

organization as they request to mediate between them.

Nope, you got that wrong.

You as the individual have no decision in whether Walmart chooses to buy their screwdriver from Mexico or India. You can only work within the choices made available to you.

The Govt is responsible for Trade policy, not you

 

[stinkcat_14]

stinkcat_14:

organization as they request to mediate between them.

Nope, you got that wrong.

You as the individual have no decision in whether Walmart chooses to buy their screwdriver from Mexico or India. You can only work within the choices made available to you.

The Govt is responsible for Trade policy, not you

I am not sure what your point is? Who says I must buy from Walmart?

 

[Theo520]

I am not sure what your point is? Who says I must buy from Walmart?

You referred to ‘Individuals’ and in general their choices are dictated by their local shops

How is it that you don’t get that?