Is it okay to patronize a business that employs bad people?

[fakename]

Is it okay to patronize a shop that employs bad people -really bad people, like new agers or occultists? Is it wrong to patronize a shop that employs only 1 person like that out of many? Is it okay to do so, in order to heal an oral disease that I have?

I would think yes, it’s wrong, but that seems too extreme yet it makes very rigorous sense. And double effect doesn’t seem to justify it since contributing to the spread of an evil religion is worse than having a mouth disease.

 

[beeliner]

Is it okay to patronize a shop that employs bad people -really bad people, like new agers or occultists? Is it wrong to patronize a shop that employs only 1 person like that out of many? Is it okay to do so, in order to heal an oral disease that I have?

I would think yes, it’s wrong, but that seems too extreme yet it makes very rigorous sense. And double effect doesn’t seem to justify it since contributing to the spread of an evil religion is worse than having a mouth disease.

Hmmm…this was your 666th post.

Coincidence? I DON’T THINK SO!

 

[odile53]

Why not just visit a dentist or a doctor, it seems like they would have access to something more effective than some herb or vitamin?

 

[karow]

Is it okay to patronize a shop that employs bad people -really bad people, like new agers or occultists? Is it wrong to patronize a shop that employs only 1 person like that out of many? Is it okay to do so, in order to heal an oral disease that I have?

I would think yes, it’s wrong, but that seems too extreme yet it makes very rigorous sense. And double effect doesn’t seem to justify it since contributing to the spread of an evil religion is worse than having a mouth disease.

If it isn’t Okay to patronize organizations that employ New Agers and occultists, please do let me know because I need a real good reason to quit my job.

Seriously, I don’t know without quizzing an employee how you’d ever know what their spiritual life was, or even if they had one. Please remember that a good many so-called New Age or occult symbols have been co-opted by the wider society, so just because someone sports a pentagram necklace or tattoo doesn’t mean they’re up to somethng nefarious.

 

[kmuestwin]

Yes it is ok.

 

[sw85]

Is it okay to patronize a shop that employs bad people -really bad people, like new agers or occultists? Is it wrong to patronize a shop that employs only 1 person like that out of many? Is it okay to do so, in order to heal an oral disease that I have?

I would think yes, it’s wrong, but that seems too extreme yet it makes very rigorous sense. And double effect doesn’t seem to justify it since contributing to the spread of an evil religion is worse than having a mouth disease.

You’re going to have a hard time finding a place to do business that doesn’t employ a sinner!

 

[Heuchler]

Unless you personally are out there donating to a satanist to help further their cause, there is no problem.

 

[MilesVitae]

Is it okay to patronize a shop that employs bad people -really bad people, like new agers or occultists? Is it wrong to patronize a shop that employs only 1 person like that out of many? Is it okay to do so, in order to heal an oral disease that I have?

I would think yes, it’s wrong, but that seems too extreme yet it makes very rigorous sense. And double effect doesn’t seem to justify it since contributing to the spread of an evil religion is worse than having a mouth disease.

Yes, it is fine. There is nothing wrong with it at all.
Furthermore, you are not contributing to the spread of a false religion.

 

[fakename]

Yes, it is fine. There is nothing wrong with it at all.
Furthermore, you are not contributing to the spread of a false religion.

But why is this reasoning wrong:

giving people money is contributing to them

profits are distributed to worker’s wages,

the worker spends his wages doing evil

so by funding profits you fund evil and so you are contributing to evil. Now to contribute to this particular evil -false worship -is esp. bad and to be avoided even if it hurts one’s health.

Also, I think “to contribute” in this case, means “to supply wages to” since out of his wages, a bad person funds his lifestyle.

 

[Rkdajr]

But why is this reasoning wrong:

giving people money is contributing to them

profits are distributed to worker’s wages,

the worker spends his wages doing evil

so by funding profits you fund evil and so you are contributing to evil. Now to contribute to this particular evil -false worship -is esp. bad and to be avoided even if it hurts one’s health.

Also, I think “to contribute” in this case, means “to supply wages to” since out of his wages, a bad person funds his lifestyle.

In line with what sw85 said, what if the employers were pro-choice, or homosexual, or even a person who uses contraception? By your reasoning that means there is a chance the pro-choice could donate to a pro-choice charity, the homosexual person could give money towards an activity that supports gay lifestyle and the last could use their money to buy condoms, for pre-marital sex or not. Those would all be examples of a worker spending his wages to fund an immoral lifestyle. It would be difficult to know these things anyway, so to say that is pretty extreme. Although the OP knows what their spirituality is, it still seems extreme to say it would be unacceptable to relieve a mouth disease in order to avoid the possibility of a new ager buying a um…pentagram necklace, hehe. They’re probably just trying to pay their rent or groceries…If you knew that they were using this money for evil (or better yet if you asked them ) then I think that would make the situation different.

In my family though, if we find out a brand of food or drink has been known to donate to pro-choice charities, then we try not to buy it :angel1: the reverse if we find out they donate to pro-life charities.

 

[beeliner]

But why is this reasoning wrong:

giving people money is contributing to them

profits are distributed to worker’s wages,

the worker spends his wages doing evil

so by funding profits you fund evil and so you are contributing to evil. Now to contribute to this particular evil -false worship -is esp. bad and to be avoided even if it hurts one’s health.

Also, I think “to contribute” in this case, means “to supply wages to” since out of his wages, a bad person funds his lifestyle.

fake, all of the replies you’ve received, other than my initial facetious one, have been well-stated.

I’m not sure how old a person you are, if you live your life regarding every non-Catholic or non-Christian you meet or have to interact with as ‘bad…really bad’ you will have a very narrow view of life. You didn’t really give many details of the people you’re referring to, other than mentioning “New Age” and “occult” specifically.

Let’s take them one at a time:

“New Age” is a ‘term of art’. There is very little new about “New Age” beliefs. They are mainly just warmed-over paganism. Paganism existed long before there was any such thing as Christianity, and in fact, some pagan elements were actually incorporated into Christianity, for example, virgin birth, and celebrating important holidays at certain times of the year. One thing that paganism has in its favor is that it requires much less faith than Christianity. If you, for example, worship the Sun, you can look right out your window each and every morning and see it there, shining down on you. The Christian God doesn’t manifest Himself that way, at least not in a material sense.

“Occult” simply means ‘hidden’. In the early days of Christianity, prospective converts were not allowed to remain at Mass past the offertory, so that the canon of the Mass remained ‘occult’ to them until they were baptized.

Now, it’s certainly possible that some of the people you encounter ARE evil in one way or another, we are all sinners, but some of us regard our sins more seriously than others of us.

You seem to be saying that those who might regard sin less seriously than you do should not even be allowed to earn a living, at least not anywhere that you happen to be working!

Do you really think that that’s a realistic attitude?

If so, you might consider joining a monastic order, but even there, it’s unlikely that you’ll find many of your peers who share your attitude toward the rest of humanity.

 

[fakename]

fake, all of the replies you’ve received, other than my initial facetious one, have been well-stated.

I’m not sure how old a person you are, if you live your life regarding every non-Catholic or non-Christian you meet or have to interact with as ‘bad…really bad’ you will have a very narrow view of life. You didn’t really give many details of the people you’re referring to, other than mentioning “New Age” and “occult” specifically.

Let’s take them one at a time:

“New Age” is a ‘term of art’. There is very little new about “New Age” beliefs. They are mainly just warmed-over paganism. Paganism existed long before there was any such thing as Christianity, and in fact, some pagan elements were actually incorporated into Christianity, for example, virgin birth, and celebrating important holidays at certain times of the year. One thing that paganism has in its favor is that it requires much less faith than Christianity. If you, for example, worship the Sun, you can look right out your window each and every morning and see it there, shining down on you. The Christian God doesn’t manifest Himself that way, at least not in a material sense.

“Occult” simply means ‘hidden’. In the early days of Christianity, prospective converts were not allowed to remain at Mass past the offertory, so that the canon of the Mass remained ‘occult’ to them until they were baptized.

Now, it’s certainly possible that some of the people you encounter ARE evil in one way or another, we are all sinners, but some of us regard our sins more seriously than others of us.

You seem to be saying that those who might regard sin less seriously than you do should not even be allowed to earn a living, at least not anywhere that you happen to be working!

Do you really think that that’s a realistic attitude?

If so, you might consider joining a monastic order, but even there, it’s unlikely that you’ll find many of your peers who share your attitude toward the rest of humanity.

The reductio ad absurdums being granted, what other attitude towards evil is even possible?

Even within the principle of double effect, I can’t think of anything that could justify patronizing heretics, much less non-believers -as if they should be helped with their non-belief.

Or possibly, we can cooperate with these types of people on the idea that we are rewarding them for something that is okay (helping us out with some problem) and not that we are helping them be wrong. But that seems to be a mental distinction only, in reality the rewards of virtue can be used to fund vice. If the vice is big enough, we ought not give a reward for virtue. Or shoud we? If I reward someone for not lying and they use that reward to buy a hooker I don’t know what moral category that would fit into.

 

[kmuestwin]

But why is this reasoning wrong:

giving people money is contributing to them

profits are distributed to worker’s wages,

the worker spends his wages doing evil

so by funding profits you fund evil and so you are contributing to evil. Now to contribute to this particular evil -false worship -is esp. bad and to be avoided even if it hurts one’s health.

Also, I think “to contribute” in this case, means “to supply wages to” since out of his wages, a bad person funds his lifestyle.

I think that you might need some counseling for scrupulosity. You can’t control the whole world. God gave everyone free will so the best you can do is be a good example of how a Christian lives in a fallen world. Everyone falls short of what God wants and every mortal sin weighs the same against the soul. We are all “bad people” in the sense that we all sin every day. It is up to us to do our best to follow God and when we slip up to come back to Him like the prodigal son.

How do you know that these people are bad. Unless you have the God-given ability to read souls, you can never truly know their condition. The best advice is to pray for others and do your best to be an example because people are going to make their own choices.

 

[beeliner]

1. Even within the principle of double effect, I can’t think of anything that could justify patronizing heretics, much less non-believers -as if they should be helped with their non-belief.
2. If I reward someone for not lying and they use that reward to buy a hooker I don’t know what moral category that would fit into.

1. In other words, “Kauft nicht bei Juden”. Gee whiz, now where have I heard THAT before?
2. Well, firstly, I’m not sure how one would ‘reward someone for not lying’, and secondly, hookers are RENTED, not bought.

I suggest that you discuss your bizarre attitudes toward your fellow man with your parish priest and see what he says.

 

[fakename]

1. In other words, “Kauft nicht bei Juden”. Gee whiz, now where have I heard THAT before?
2. Well, firstly, I’m not sure how one would ‘reward someone for not lying’, and secondly, hookers are RENTED, not bought.

I suggest that you discuss your bizarre attitudes toward your fellow man with your parish priest and see what he says.

1. okay people are rewarded for good works so just say hypothetically rewarded for x, and revise to mean if hookers could be bought.
2. Please tell me the correct attitude the church teaches. Indeed we can’t control everyone but that doesn’t mean we can’t try and influence some people and it doesn’t mean we can’t try to control ourselves and our circumstances, (like who we patronize). And in the end, we are all bad to some degree -venial sin being what it is.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

First of all, who are you to determine if someone is “bad”. You have absolutely no right to judge anyone else.

 

[beeliner]

Please tell me the correct attitude the church teaches. .

I would only repeat what I suggested in the previous post: Print out this entire thread, show it to your pastor, and request his appraisal of your attittude.

I would put it this way, and this has been my attitude through life (I’m past 70): “Any time spent worrying about my neighbor’s sins is better spent worrying about my own.”

You pastor might put it a bit differently, but in that case you will have two opinions in addition to those already expressed by other posters here.

 

[AHapka]

If you buy anything from a major corporation, statistics dictates they will have someone employed that qualify as “bad.”

Which means you could buy nothing made/sold by/at Wal-Mart, Target, Johnson Wax, and so on and so forth. Even buying a toilet brush has probably went through a ton of businesses.

So as long as you don’t formally co-operate in any evils, you are good.

Remote material co-operation is really not a sin in my opinion.

 

[fakename]

If you buy anything from a major corporation, statistics dictates they will have someone employed that qualify as “bad.”

Which means you could buy nothing made/sold by/at Wal-Mart, Target, Johnson Wax, and so on and so forth. Even buying a toilet brush has probably went through a ton of businesses.

So as long as you don’t formally co-operate in any evils, you are good.

Remote material co-operation is really not a sin in my opinion.

However, do you think that getting over some bad gums (sorry, graphic) is a proportionate reason for remotely helping non-believers?

Maybe I should ask an apologist?

 

[Equites_Christi]

Every employee, granted that they are human, is a sinner.

Their wages keep them alive, making it possible for them to commit even MORE sins in the future.

Your spent money propagates the system that pays them.

So maybe you shouldn’t buy anything at all.