I posed this question to a friend of mine: “Do you believe the government should be able to force institutions/establishments to pay for things to violate their morals?”
Then my friend replied, “I think that’s a loaded question. Tobacco companies do not believe they are doing anything immoral but it’s proven they are killing people everyday. Should the government force legislation upon them? They have since before you and I were born. And, we are all okay with that.”
I’m not quite sure how to respond. Any suggestions?
God Bless.
Does it VIOLATE a corporations “Morals” to pay for some of the liability that the courts have deemed that their PRODUCT caused?
I’d say… NO, it violates their pocketbook, it violates their corporate earnings, it may even make them ‘fear’ that they may be open to individual lawsuits and increased liability over time; but I don’t see how it actually violates their conscience and makes them do something that they believe is morally wrong.
But I would find it HARD to actually PROVE that the laws VIOLATE big Tobaccos actual moral beliefs. They may even word it in that way…but I really fail to see how they ‘morally’ believe that they are obligated to continue to make those products and pay ZERO liability based on the well documented health risks. I mean: Are they morally obligated to making smoking products? - I don’t think so. Are they morally obligated to buy Tobacco leaves, dry them, roll them into cigarettes, add nicotine, tar, etc. ? - I fail to see how. Are they morally obligated to market them, buy ad space in magazines, radio, sporting events, etc? Doubtful!
Maybe your friend needs to do into detail and explain HOW it violates actual morals. Not simply “they don’t like it, so it is wrong to force them to do something they don’t wanna do” – but illustrate which MORALS it actually violates.
See the difference? - It really is not even the same thing. I think your friend simply thinks that the Church 'doesn’t wanna" and that’s the extent of its argument. Perhaps your friend doesn’t truly understand what Morals and Principles ARE? - Often times it is important to take a step BACK and define things and make sure you start the conversation with the same definitions. Often times disagreements are because each party has different interpretations or understandings of a certain word. Morals are NOT merely 'what I think I should be able to do." or “What I want to do” or even “that which doesn’t hurt anyone that I know of or am aware of”
Secondly… their product is the issue. The Religious organizations that fall under this mandate aren’t peddling a ‘product’ and it is not the ‘product’ that is the issue. No one is alleging that the Church’s teachings cause sterilization or contraception and therefore it SHOULD pay at least a portion of that liablity… as is the case with Tobacco.
So you really can’t compare a college or Church who’s product is NOT the issue and the Tobacco companies who’s direct product IS the source of the problem and what is being legislated.
Thirdly… IF you want to make a more apt analogy between Big Tobacco and the HHS mandate… it would be linking Contraception and Sterilization to Tobacco… not the Church to Tobacco.
Tobacco has been linked to increased instances of cancer - which is bad, and therefore is being legislated and taxed.
Birth Control Pills are on the World Health Organizations list of Carcinogens (aka Cancer causing substances) the same list as Smoking and Asbestos. – THERE’S your Analogy if you want one.
Sterilization doesn’t IMPROVE one’s health… neither does contraception. BOTH damage or inhibit the bodies NATURAL and HEALTHY function.
You can not call mutilating a perfectly functioning reproductive system so that it can no longer function as “healthy”
Similar to how we can’t call inhaling carcinogens into your lungs which cause lung cancer “healthy”
