Is It Wrong to Use Mainstream Internet Browsers?

[LeafByNiggle]

It seems to rest on proportionality then, or at least on my interpretation of it. Isn’t it morally relativistic to assign values to effects intuitively rather than mathematically? Morality is objective. Why doesn’t the principle of double effect have some requirement that demonstrates the point that everyone here is trying to make? If your stance isn’t supported by anything in the teachings of the Church then I don’t see how it can be treated as correct.

I don’t think an intuitive interpretation of proportionality is necessarily moral relativism. Yes, morality is objective. But objective does not mean mathematically calculable. Such judgements fall in the category of prudential judgement, which is an established principle in Catholic teaching. It holds that in applying certain moral principles to specific instances, Catholics are free to employ their informed conscience in coming to a decision. In this process the Church recognizes that Catholics of good faith may disagree about these applications. That does not mean that such judgments are merely relative to some arbitrary moral standard. It means that various decisions can be consistent with Church teaching - for example over how much one should give to charity. This does not mean anything goes. We are still bound to base our moral decisions on a properly formed conscience. But within that context, some variation is allowed. That would not be the case if every moral decision were mathematically calculable. That is how I support my understanding of what I called an “intuitive” proportionality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How can anyone be ‘supporting’ an organisation that has some policies that one disagrees with, if you’re using a product of that organisation that is given away for free? They get no benefit from you using it. They are not sustained by means of that use.

One could almost take the view that using said free product could be thought of as harmful to them, inasmuch as it took resources to develop the product and therefore was a burden upon them.

That is not exactly true. Google gets revenue from showing ads in their search results. I’m not sure exactly what the business model is for Internet browsers, but you can be sure it benefits them when people use their product. If it didn’t they would go out of business.

 

[sallybutler]

How can anyone be ‘supporting’ an organisation that has some policies that one disagrees with, if you’re using a product of that organisation that is given away for free? They get no benefit from you using it. They are not sustained by means of that use.

One could almost take the view that using said free product could be thought of as harmful to them, inasmuch as it took resources to develop the product and therefore was a burden upon them.

And the result is that you would not be able to live in the current world.