Is it moral to support an immoral institution?

[Surlethe]

The issue's a little subtler than the thread title makes it sound, so read the OP first. Say you've got this institution that is generally corrupt, has behaved immorally in the past, and has immoral policies currently in effect. Is it moral to join the institution, lending it your implicit support, and say, "I disagree with the immoral policies, and will work against them"?

This thread was inspired by Invictus ChiKen's thread in OT (before he admitted he actually supported all of the Catholic Church's policies), and the realization that one could level some of the same arguments against moving to the United States. So, case study: RCC, its priest scandal, and condom policy. Is it moral to join the organization? Case study two: USA, and its foreign policy and Iraq war. Is it moral to move to the US right now?

[Rye]

It's not moral according to my moral compass, no. If I were to vote BNP even though I disagreed with their policies, perhaps to scare Labour into tighter immigration controls rather than to actually get the BNP in, I would think it came at too high a cost. I don't know, if the only way to deal with such a system was from within, then it could be justified, but if remaining outside it was still possible and within reason, it would be the honourable thing to do, in my opinion.

[Gil Hamilton]

Depends. I know I was holding my nose when I voted for John Kerry last election, even though I thought he was a shlub and I certainly don't support everything the DNC does. However, the alternatives were all worse. You can be part of an institution morally that isn't particularly moral if everything else is worse or completely useless. And I certainly support America as an idea and a country, even though our shit stinks pretty bad right now.

However, you still have to take responsibility for that. If you join an institution and it does something rotten, you have to shoulder your fair share of blame for it. Take the last election. A whole bunch of people voted for John Kerry, myself included. If he had gotten elected, everything he did and the positions he takes are by association partly my fault. After all, I helped get him there. In a minute way for certain, but I gave him 100% of my support in one of the narrow times my support matters even a little bit, even though he'd have won PA anyway whether I voted or not.

That's what makes alot of Bush supporters so irritating, including the reluctant ones. All the bad shit he does or every stupid thing that comes out of his mouth they refuse to shoulder any responsibility for. Of course they have to shoulder some responsibility. After all, they used all their political power (negligable or not) to put him power the first time and often the second time, so how can they divorce themselves from his actions and positions? For example, a person saying he supports gay marriage is completely meaningless if every candidate he votes for wants makes banning gay marriage illegal and even unconstitutional. In fact, if all his candidates are against gay marriage, in a practical sense, so is he. After all, he voted for them to represent him in government. Thus, he gets everything that goes with it.

[Darth Wong]

This reminds me of the old "is it immoral to work for an immoral corporation" ethical question. Unfortunately, questions like this tend to be framed in the old black/white "moral or immoral" "good or evil" dichotomy rather than viewing morality as a decision-making system where you make the best (or least bad) decision.

[Nova Andromeda]

-The answer depends largely on what are the benefits to yourself and others if you join vs. what are costs to yourself and others if you do something else (presumably the best option available aside from this one). If the benefits outweigh the costs then it can be considered a moral choice.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think it would be wrong, because in the long run, you yourself are not only offering tacit support to a position represented by the person or organization, but you also may be intentionally or unintentionally inducing other people to do so, in a kind of small 'snowballing.'

[wolveraptor]

How is moving to the US showing support for the government's foreign policies? It's showing support for the the country, so much support that you'd be willing to abandon your homeland to experience it. Besides, you could move here and vote against any policies you disagree with after becoming a citizen.

[darthbob88]

Hells yes. As somebody on the "outside", I have comparatively little power to enact change in the organization's policies, short of violence and destruction. As someone on the "inside", I can at least act as a whistle-blower and bring about change thusly. It might be personally disgusting, but my actions would have a positive impact, and thus be morally acceptable.

[Lord Pounder]

Depends on who's defination of immoral it is. I used to be a member of the Grand Orange Lodge or Ireland. I supported it fully. When I realised that the Order didn't conform to my code of morality (i.e. they where biggoted and intolerant plus they demanded worship of a god I didn't believe in) I left at the cost of some good friends, some blood and a broken nose.

[AK_Jedi]

It really depends on HOW immoral it is. For example, I think that the Boy Scouts of America have some very immoral policies regarding homosexuals and atheists, but I still think that the organization as a whole is good, and that on a day to day small scale basis, they deserve my support.

[Stark]

There are immoral organisations that are trying to change, or that are subject to legistlation or regulation that apply pressure for reform. In this case, things are being done and perhaps it's okay.

However, in the case of a religion, where there is little to no pressure and they're trying to NOT change and lawmakers barely touch them, it's totally different. Not only are these organisations immoral, but the LIKE BEING IMMORAL and they are conservative. Thus, signing up is basically saying 'I want to join this knowingly bigoted organisation knowing that there's no change coming'.

In this I'm not just talking about immorality of concealing sex offenders etc, but the immorality of their core beliefs. Obviously these can't change, so joining a church means you're accepting that.

[Darth Raptor]

I believe the ability you have to affect change within said organization determines whether or not it is permissible. Becoming a US citizen gives you a vote and, ostensibly, a shot at running for public office. Political speech is also protected so you can rant and rave endlessly about the aspects of America that suck. Contrast this to the RCC or Wal-Mart. Entry-level positions are completely powerless and the damage you'll do as a stormtrooper completely eclipses whatever astronomically remote chance you have of becoming pope.

[Magus]

As others have said, it depends on the ability for you to make a difference, weighted against your inherent contribution to the "evil" cause. Since you tossed out the example of the RCC, we can use that for a case study.

Joining a parish lends no inherent strength to the church, either locally or abroad. You're not required to tithe, or attend rallies, or write your senator to persecute homosexuality. They also don't keep track of attendance. However, if you play your cards right, you could become a fairly key player in your individual diocese, and push for swinging the individual parish a little more to the left (if that's the goal). Your new Parish's practices might even cause some snowballing, if the liberals in nearby parishes hear about your success and emulate you.

Even if this doesn't occur, I can't really see the downside joining the RCC. Adding one more person to their demographic does next to nothing in increasing their clout. If anything, having a high enrollment and low parish activity suggests that the Church as a whole isn't connecting with its parishioners, which is what led to Vatican II and other leftist policy changes.

[Stark]

Even if this doesn't occur, I can't really see the downside joining the RCC.

And joining does nothing but implictly support them. So... why join again, unless you're an emotional cripple that needs a sky fairy to make you feel better and a captive audience for social networking?

[Magus]

Even if this doesn't occur, I can't really see the downside joining the RCC.

And joining does nothing but implictly support them. So... why join again, unless you're an emotional cripple that needs a sky fairy to make you feel better and a captive audience for social networking?

I already said that one has the opportunity to steer at least one's local parish in a direction to where they are a positive force in the community, or at least are a better force than before. I never addressed beliefs, because they aren't relevant to the OP - which discusses the morality of joining an organization with immoral facets and attempting to improve them.

Then again, it sounds to me like you're just looking to take pot shots, so go right ahead.

[Stark]

I'm just not seeing how a chance of 'steering a parish' (sounds like it takes a lot of time) makes a damn bit of difference to a multinational institution. You're STILL wearing the RCC badge, and the RCC STILL does bad things.

Oh wait, you're dismissing me because you don't like it?

[Magus]

I'm just not seeing how a chance of 'steering a parish' (sounds like it takes a lot of time) makes a damn bit of difference to a multinational institution. You're STILL wearing the RCC badge, and the RCC STILL does bad things.

Oh wait, you're dismissing me because you don't like it?

I don't see how avoiding said institution makes a damn bit of difference to a multinational institution, either. They'll still chug on without you. I don't see how attempting to direct the considerable resources of a local parish towards good deeds can be anything but desirable.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of "wearing the RCC badge." Who says you have to broadcast the fact that you joined the parish?

Nope, not dismissing you because I don't like it. I merely pointed out that you asked a question that I explained clearly in the post you responded to, which suggests that you gave the post a cursory reading at best. I also pointed out that you were bringing up matters of faith irrelevant to the discussion at hand for the seemingly singular purpose of taking pot-shots at Christianity.

[Darth Raptor]

You can't kill the Church by dragging down its membership and cutting off its money? Uh huh. It's not as if the Church will "keep chugging along" if it's out of money and has zero membership.

[Stark]

I don't see how avoiding said institution makes a damn bit of difference to a multinational institution, either. They'll still chug on without you. I don't see how attempting to direct the considerable resources of a local parish towards good deeds can be anything but desirable.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of "wearing the RCC badge." Who says you have to broadcast the fact that you joined the parish?

Nope, not dismissing you because I don't like it. I merely pointed out that you asked a question that I explained clearly in the post you responded to, which suggests that you gave the post a cursory reading at best. I also pointed out that you were bringing up matters of faith irrelevant to the discussion at hand for the seemingly singular purpose of taking pot-shots at Christianity.

Well I see your logic as silly - should I talk about it being moral and okay to join the Klu Klux Klan (based on immoral ideas, like the RCC) and try to 'steer a local parish' to more 'liberal' ideas, hoping that this might fire up other liberals to JOIN THE KKK THEY HATE and try to change it from within? People would say that was stupid. How is it different for the RCC?

By 'wear the badge', I mean you get tarred by the same brush. The RCC does terrible, immoral things, and you're a member. That's bad, and as I said in my first post in this thread trying to change something so huge when there's little drive for change (conservatives are much stronger) and there's no real pressure from without to change, AND they're doing terrible things they don't apologise for is stupid.

[Magus]

Well I see your logic as silly - should I talk about it being moral and okay to join the Klu Klux Klan (based on immoral ideas, like the RCC) and try to 'steer a local parish' to more 'liberal' ideas...

The difference is in the separation between a parish as an independent organization and the parish as a mere extension of official dogma and teaching. I highly doubt you'll find a Klan member who isn't racist - remove that and there's nothing left to your status as a Klansman.

Conversely, most Catholics rank church teaching on social issues such as abortion, premarital sex, and homosexuality as minor to their faiths. "Dissenting Catholics" are commonplace, whereas "Dissenting Klansmen" are not.

Based on that, and based on the number of Catholics I know who don't support immoralities that the Church officially does, I don't believe the RCC, as a sum of its parishioners, to be immoral at its core. This is why I believe an effort to redirect the actions of an individual parish may meet with a good degree of success. Additionally, if you can convince the parish board to fix houses for the poor rather than picket at an abortion clinic, you've achieved a 2-for-1.

hoping that this might fire up other liberals to JOIN THE KKK THEY HATE and try to change it from within? People would say that was stupid. How is it different for the RCC?

Most of the people I know don't hate the Catholic church as you do, or as they hate the Klan. Most adopt a stance of "Meh, they do some good shit, they do some bad shit."

By 'wear the badge', I mean you get tarred by the same brush. The RCC does terrible, immoral things, and you're a member. That's bad, and as I said in my first post in this thread trying to change something so huge when there's little drive for change (conservatives are much stronger) and there's no real pressure from without to change, AND they're doing terrible things they don't apologize for is stupid.

I don't recall advocating that one join a parish and try to change international Catholic dogma. I merely suggested that one could direct a local parish towards efforts of good will and charity. You are strawmanning my position.

[Magus]

You can't kill the Church by dragging down its membership and cutting off its money? Uh huh. It's not as if the Church will "keep chugging along" if it's out of money and has zero membership.

If you have enough people to meaningfully impact Church membership via boycotting, you have enough people to create a serious change in the way church funds and manpower are allocated. By the time you get enough people together to kill the membership, you don't need to quit - you effectively own the parish, even if you can't touch the Vatican.

As for money, I specifically said that tithing is neither required or enforced.

[Stark]

I don't recall advocating that one join a parish and try to change international Catholic dogma. I merely suggested that one could direct a local parish towards efforts of good will and charity. You are strawmanning my position.

No, we're talking at cross purposes. I don't see that maybe perhaps slightly changing a single parish's attitudes or efforts - which is going to be pretty fucking hard since most of their immoral attitudes are straight from the fuckin bible - is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS next to the huge international badness the RCC does, and you tacitly support as a member. See, if I was a member of a massive, conservative organisation and I found out it did half the shit the RCC did I'd quit instantly, not futilely try to slowly, slowly try to change a tiny part of it for the better... because it's still build on immoral attitudes and deeply conservative. Just because many RCC members don't support the stupid or terrible things the RCC does doesn't make them immune, and they are STILL supporting the organisation. Just like the legal arms of the mob.

[Cairber]

Say you've got this institution that is generally corrupt, has behaved immorally in the past, and has immoral policies currently in effect. Is it moral to join the institution, lending it your implicit support, and say, "I disagree with the immoral policies, and will work against them"?

I remember I had a conversation with another mom about this when I told her why I avoid Nestle products. It turned out her husband worked for Nestle . Despite our lengthy conversation, I could not accept supporting Nestle as being "ok," but I did understand that a person needs to make a living. I think the thing that got me the most was that her husband worked in the baby food division of Nestle but had never heard of the boycott or babymilkaction (Nestle has a nasty habit of pushing their baby formula in areas with unsanitary water, writing their 'warnings' in languages other thsn the one spoken in the area of sale, and generally disobeying laws on the issue of mother's milk substitutes which have combined to make them one of the most boycotted countries in the world).

So it wasn't just "joining" Nestle that made me angry but the fact that the man knew nothing about these things despite working in the division of Nestle that is the problem.

Uh, so, through all that rambling I guess I would say that my moral compass does not agree with joining organizations that I deem immoral.

[Ritterin Sophia]

What's this about Nestle Milk, are you talking about all the milk or just baby formula? Schatten has been confuzzled...

[Darth Raptor]

What's this about Nestle Milk, are you talking about all the milk or just baby formula? Schatten has been confuzzled...

She's boycotting it because of its unethical business practices, not because some of its products are unsafe.