Propotionate causes for remote cooperation with evil?

[angell1]

on everything I’ve read about remote material cooperation with evil, it always there must be a just cause or proportionate reason for participating.

so how does this square with what we pay for for enjoyment, for example? in fact, that is a common argument by certain prolife groups, that if you use Netflix, or Disney or starbucks, we are potentially giving them money that they later use to support abortion and because it’s just for enjoyment, then it’s never justifiable, hence the calls to boycott. there just don’t seem to be a lot of alternatives, everything single company seems to have this problem, if you start looking in to it. if it’s not abortion, then it’s gay pride, or gender ideology, or terrible working conditions or slavish child labour, ETC…

I’m honestly tired of being stressed about it and having scruples flare up all the time, or being treated like I’m a bad catholic or responsible for the murder of children, I wish businesses would just stick to promoting their own products instead of getting involved with everything else

 

[porthos11]

You give Starbucks money to buy coffee, not to kill children.

Once that money changes hands, it is theirs. Since it’s theirs, what they do with it is on their own conscience, not yours. As far as you’re concerned, you did not “contribute” to any abortion. You just bought a coffee.

The same logic applies to regular employees. So your employee has drug and alcohol problem; does that mean you don’t pay him because you will be cooperating in the drug trade and to his drunkenness? No! You pay him because justice demands it. What he does with the money that is now rightfully his is on him.

Buying a coffee is not a cooperation with evil, even remote.

That said, you’ll probably get better coffee from the Italian nonna by the corner than you will ever get from Starbucks.

 

[patrick9999]

on everything I’ve read about remote material cooperation with evil, it always there must be a just cause or proportionate reason for participating.

so how does this square with what we pay for for enjoyment, for example? in fact, that is a common argument by certain prolife groups, that if you use Netflix, or Disney or starbucks, we are potentially giving them money that they later use to support abortion and because it’s just for enjoyment, then it’s never justifiable, hence the calls to boycott. there just don’t seem to be a lot of alternatives, everything single company seems to have this problem, if you start looking in to it. if it’s not abortion, then it’s gay pride, or gender ideology, or terrible working conditions or slavish child labour, ETC…

I’m honestly tired of being stressed about it and having scruples flare up all the time, or being treated like I’m a bad catholic or responsible for the murder of children, I wish businesses would just stick to promoting their own products instead of getting involved with everything else

A little more guidance from The Church on how the moral principle applies to current circumstances would certainly be helpful.

 

[Hume]

You give Starbucks money to buy coffee, not to kill children.

Once that money changes hands, it is theirs. Since it’s theirs, what they do with it is on their own conscience, not yours. As far as you’re concerned, you did not “contribute” to any abortion. You just bought a coffee.

Hear, hear!

 

[angell1]

most apologists that I have seen treat the subject, do classify it as material cooperation though, however they usually say it is remote in nature

 

[angell1]

yes, I agree

 

[porthos11]

most apologists that I have seen treat the subject, do classify it as material cooperation though, however they usually say it is remote in nature

And I don’t agree with them. There is a change in ownership due to a completely just transaction (giving them money for a cup of coffee). That is where your cooperation stops. All you have done is add to the company’s wealth, which is in itself not a bad thing. In fact, it is exactly what should happen.

If the company does evil with its wealth, that’s not your fault. One is hard pressed even draw a smidgen of cooperation from this.

Now if the company said, 5% of the proceeds of this coffee will go to the Starbucks Circle of Darkness for Population Control, complete with branding and the Planned Parenthood logo, then that’s where it becomes problematic. Because now you are intentionally directing funds to a budget that is set aside specifically for evil purposes. You do not do that on your run of the mill coffee.