Is it wrong for people to scape goat the Catholic Church's

[Gustaf]

Yes and no. It depends on how one views morality on a fundamental level. Personally, I've always thought it to be a bit unfair to attack a moral principle for the consequences of other people breaking it. At the same time I still understand where those people are coming from - the balance between pragmatism and principles is one I always found to be very tough.

[Gustaf]

But if the White people who were so busy attacking the Catholic Church for its lack of action in opposition to its principles started sending money over to Africa to cover for groups that do dispense condoms then there would be no issue here.  Alas, the number of white people who are jumping on the wagon to bitch at the Catholic Church for not acting has not increased the level of action from Whitie on the issue.

That isn't really a retort to their argument though.  Unless the Catholic Church's plan is to allow HIV to spread to the level that people feel compelled to donate, the two exist independently of each other.

The Catholic Church chooses to abide to their religious beliefs.  It, by most accounts, results in fewer deaths being prevented than optimally could be with the same number of resources.  A lot of non-Catholic thinkers object.  From where I'm sitting, I can't blame them.

Of course, a lot of those people just take glee in beating up the Church, but dismissing the complaints because of that would be well-poisoning.

But it's a bit strange for someone to say that others should have certain opinions because that person thinks it would optimize resource allocation...most people don't lift a finger for other people at all. Personally, if I see someone help a little old lady over the street I don't yell their head off because that person didn't help a lady who was older and more help-worthy.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

supersoulty, you're casually ignoring the fact that there are various brave aid organizations in Africa that are doing all they can to spread education about sex and the health benefits of condoms, despite the constants threats and deceitful myths spread out by the Catholic Church about condoms. My heart and good wishes go to all of them, and I occasioanlly send them monetary donations.

The Catholic Church is in a perfect position to also do this, but they do not. This makes them immoral. I do not care one bit what Church doctrine is. if you are in a position to save lives, and you do not do so, you are immoral.

I know your response will probably be 'But the church teaches abstinence instead.' Very well, but that does not account for the myths and propaganda sent out by them against condoms and it does not account for the attacks on anyone who promotes or distributes them.

Why can't the Catholic Church just say, ' it is our doctrine that you should not have sex before marriage and sex is only for procreation, but if you feel compelled to flaunt this doctrine, then please for your own sake, wear a condom.'

Why exactly can't or won't they say that?

You think one should always save lives, regardless of circumstances and what is required? I could save a ton of lives if I robbed a little old lady in the street and donated the money to charity, for instance. Is it immoral for me to refrain?

[Gustaf]

You think one should always save lives, regardless of circumstances and what is required? I could save a ton of lives if I robbed a little old lady in the street and donated the money to charity, for instance. Is it immoral for me to refrain?

Not a fan of taxation, then? 

Huh?

[Gustaf]

You think one should always save lives, regardless of circumstances and what is required? I could save a ton of lives if I robbed a little old lady in the street and donated the money to charity, for instance. Is it immoral for me to refrain?

Not a fan of taxation, then? 

Huh?

Not to sound like a hyper-libertarian, but other than forcing you to spend time filling out forms, what's the moral difference between robbery and taxation, if both have the ends of bettering society?  What makes one moral, and the other immoral?  Besides the assumption that the government has more oversight in managing the money, and the negative psychological impact of being robbed forcefully, I don't see any.

Oh. Sure, that could be an interesting discussion, but I don't believe it's of the utmost importance for my point, since most people support the existence of taxes and don't support robbery.

But two answers to your point: in taxation we reach some sort of consensus whereby at least a majority of the people, hopefully guided by a constitution through certain measures try to achieve common goals. In the robbery I'm more into what Mango seems to be arguing, namely that I myself know what should be done and does it without paying any heed to other people.

Secondly, in most free societies there is an implied limit to what levels of taxation are acceptable. The robbery was based precisely on the premise that there was no such limit. Keep in mind that the robbery was supposed to be committed by me, living in a country with the world's highest taxes and the largest foreign aid, as a GDP percentage (IIRC).

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

supersoulty, you're casually ignoring the fact that there are various brave aid organizations in Africa that are doing all they can to spread education about sex and the health benefits of condoms, despite the constants threats and deceitful myths spread out by the Catholic Church about condoms. My heart and good wishes go to all of them, and I occasioanlly send them monetary donations.

The Catholic Church is in a perfect position to also do this, but they do not. This makes them immoral. I do not care one bit what Church doctrine is. if you are in a position to save lives, and you do not do so, you are immoral.

I know your response will probably be 'But the church teaches abstinence instead.' Very well, but that does not account for the myths and propaganda sent out by them against condoms and it does not account for the attacks on anyone who promotes or distributes them.

Why can't the Catholic Church just say, ' it is our doctrine that you should not have sex before marriage and sex is only for procreation, but if you feel compelled to flaunt this doctrine, then please for your own sake, wear a condom.'

Why exactly can't or won't they say that?

You think one should always save lives, regardless of circumstances and what is required? I could save a ton of lives if I robbed a little old lady in the street and donated the money to charity, for instance. Is it immoral for me to refrain?

The analogy is false. You're talking about doing something seen as bad for the result of something generally seen as good. The Church is doing something they seem to think is good, with the result of something generally seen as bad.

Maybe if you actively created a major campaign against charities, told people they are useless and that bad things would happen to those who gave money to them...that might be a better analogy.

I never claimed it was an analogy. You said "if you are in a position to save lives, and you do not do so, you are immoral."

I merely asked if you actually believed in this by providing you with an example.

As for your point, the Church obviously think that the result they're getting (people not using condoms) is a good result and that the negative side-effects are an acceptable cost. Just the same as with my example. But, again, that is not really relevant. You made a very sweeping statement and I found it hard to believe that you would stand by it.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is the nub of my critique. They seem to think that preserving the purity of their doctrine is more important than anything. If they really cared about AIDS, then they would make the statement I said above, ' Our belief is that you abstain from sex from marriage, but if you feel compelled to break this doctrine, then please wear a condom, for your own health.' I know there are some factions of the Catholic Church that wish they would say that, but unfortunately they are in the minority.

As for my statement, I admit is is sweeping. I meant it more rhetorically speaking, than anything. But I don't think it detracts from my argument, as you must admit that there are degrees of responsibility for saving lives. Not telling a deaf person that they're about to get run over is on the highest end, your analogy is on the lowest. As regards the argument we're having, the Church's responsibility is clearly close to the lower end of the scale, but that is not enough for an organization that proposes to be the beacon of moral guidance for a billion people.

Now I think we're getting to the truth. But I'll quit being a Socratic ass and just say what I'm trying to get you to admit: namely, that the real difference between you and the Catholic Church lies more in that you have different ideas of what is a moral principle. You wouldn't refrain from saving lives in order to uphold Catholic dogma, but you would, perhaps, hopefully, for other reasons. And the virtues of Catholic dogma are hard to argue about, imo.

I should note that I personally don't agree with it either. I'm a condom-supporter myself.