[mikeash]

I have a difficult time seeing moral differences where there are no practical differences.

If the government says, "Give us $X so that we may use it to purchase a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage," the effect is exactly the same as if they said, "Spend $X purchasing a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage." I don't see how one could be moral and the other not.

I can see it at the point where it changes from spending money to taking actions. Actually dispensing or taking contraceptives would be qualitatively different from paying for a health plan. But if it's just your money going to an insurance company, I don't see why it matters if it passes through the government first.

[proksoup]

Can't they both be immoral? Whole problem is catholicism is a state supporting religion that says "your government doing evil isn't your problem".

I pay my taxes, but I consider it the least moral thing I do, for my own morality.

I look at paying taxes the same way I view my drug addicted friend that just needs a fix so he can make it til tomorrow. I don't like it, I'm enabling his problem, but I don't want him to get into a worse situation or die.

[mikeash]

Of course, they can both be immoral. If someone argued against both of them on the basis of morality, I'd probably disagree but I'd respect the argument. I just can't understand why people find it immoral to be forced to pay for contraceptives but not to be forced to pay for missiles and bullets.

[nercht12]

Basically, all this boils down to is whether "ends justify the means" or "means justify the ends". In the Catholic case, it would seem to be the latter, but that's only because they're looking at distant ends (e.g. heaven as reward for good) rather than immediate results.

Thing is though, "ignorance is bliss", or so it's said. If you were aware that life insurance companies across the US were about to make a huge gamble that might put them out of business, would you stick with yours (supposing you had one) if they (a) told you they were going to make the gamble or (b) not told you? (I suppose we could have also referred to purchasing manufacturer warranties from unsteady businesses - same principle.)

Money going to the government via taxes doesn't necessarily end up paying for contraceptives. It's supposed to be for other things. We pay taxes knowing full well that people are siphoning off money for their own gain. We don't like it, sure, but we pay taxes because of what the money is intended for. "It's the thought that counts." :/

[mikeash]

From your last paragraph, I think you've misunderstood my point. The problem with taxes isn't that it gets siphoned off for private gain. The problem is that it intentionally goes to do a bunch of horrible stuff that people disagree with. My tax money helped invade Iraq with all its horrible consequences. My tax money helps kill wedding and funeral attendees in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It pays to imprison people for non-violent drug crimes.

I'll fight to get the government to stop spending my money on these things, but on the basis that they shouldn't be doing it at all. I'd never argue that my own personal tax money should only go to things I agree with, because the whole point of taxes and government is to take collective decisions and collective action. I may not always agree with the results, but the basic concept is important and useful.

Why is it OK to send money to the US treasury when you know some small part of it will buy Hellfire missiles, but not OK to send money to Aetna when you know some small part of it will buy Plan B?

[nercht12]

Rereading it, I see what you're saying. It's a fine line point. In a way, then, I agree with you, but - let's take an interesting stance - supposing we assume that missiles can be used for good (in some way). I seem to recall the pope justifying the war against Nazi Germany. Consequently, there is a positive use. Contraceptives, however, could only be used for something the church considers immoral.

Did I catch your logic this time?