Should we stop using Google as well as Google services (youtube, gmail,…) for using Google would be an indirect cooperation with abortion businesses, and we would also be indirectly supporting the promotion of an agenda that is contrary to our faith? And is it a sin to use Google or Google services because of what has been said before?
Thank you, I don’t think it helped much though, where does using google or youtube sit on it?
What other viable alternatives are there? does bing or yahoo support abortion in some way?
Doesn’t hurt to change a home page and use something other then google, better safe then sorry I think, not sure of alternatives to youtube though. (Just changed my homepage to yahoo, better safe then sorry)
Microsoft’s Bill Gates also supports abortion and funds it, and there is no real alternative to Microsoft Windows (other then Linux).
They stuff I can boycott I will be more than happy to and better safe then sorry, then I will just focus on electing pro-life politicians until this murderous practice is stopped.
Alright, so Google is the cooperator by advertising (and donating) to immoral acts of the principal agent.
Google directly supports pro-abortion groups:
So, Google, by donating to these organizations, are formally intending abortion to occur. Therefore, Google (or the people of Google who made these decisions, but for brevity, they represent Google and therefore I will simply use “Google”) are morally guilty.
Therefore, each Google user, if Google is equally guilty of the abortion, being a Formal Cooperator, but we do not intend for abortion to occur, making us a Material Cooperator.
Now, Google is only able to fund it’s donations via advertising (their biggest source of revenue), and therefore, seeing/clicking advertisements hosted via Google/Youtube/etc is providing the money that is necessary for Google to be able to help fund abortions, making Google users Immediate Cooperators.
Now, let’s say you make that the money is immaterial, making Google users Mediate Cooperators. That still makes Google users Proximate Cooperators, as we are providing money to a company that is providing money to an abortion provider that is providing abortions.
So, our browsing provides for Google’s ability to fund abortions, therefore making those who use Google cooperators in the immoral acts Google directly funds.
Of course, that interpretation could be wrong. You could argue that Google is only a Proximate Cooperator, since they aren’t directly providing the abortionist, but they are assisting in providing the abortionist’s salary, and therefore making a contribution to the act. But, that still makes Google guilty of the immoral act, and therefore Google searchers guilty of the immoral act.
Unless if providing money to provider abortions is not a contribution to the act of an abortion. Or unless being the Proximate Cooperator (user) to the Proximate Cooperator (Google) of the Principal Agent (Planned Parenthood) is too little of a connection for any real sense of knowledge or culpability.
Honestly, as you can see, that chart did not clarify the question, at least in my various thought processes. I can see Google as either a Formal, Immediate, or Proximate Cooperators, and therefore, I can see Google users as either Immediate or Proximate Cooperators to Google’s cooperation of evil.
Which is exactly the problem, if there is a viable alternative, I will use it and suggest others use it.
I have google as my home page, but there are no ads on it. Sometimes I use youtube, and have to watch an ad.
If things don’t start changing it will get even worse I believe, as far as possibly I will try to boycott them though, the best thing to do I believe is voting pro life politicians, who will appoint pro-life supreme court justices and aiming to overturn the grossly unjust ruling of roe vs wade and equivalents such as in Australia or Canada.
The chart is not meant to determine someone else’s guilt. It is meant to determine your guilt or mine if we are cooperating in evil. Let’s walk it through together:
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that Google is killing babies. Of course they are not, and neither is Amazon or the Girl Scouts, but let’s assume they are doing something that amounts to killing babies. Then Google is the Principal Agent and we are (or we may be) the Cooperator.
Step 1: Do we intend the immoral act to occur? In other words, do we intend, by using Google, for babies to be killed? No. Therefore we are not Formal Cooperators.
Step 2: Do we provide the material that is necessary for the immoral act to occur? In other words, is our use of Google necessary for babies to be killed? No. Babies can be killed even if we do not use Google. Therefore we are not Immediate Material Cooperators.
Step 3: Do we make a contribution to the act that leads to the commission of the act? That is, does our use of Google lead to babies being killed? Or does our use of Google increase Google’s ability to fund or promote abortion? I’m not sure. If our use of Google makes them more wealthy or more influential, then perhaps the answer is yes. In that case, we are Proximate Mediate Material Cooperators (if I am reading the chart right), and we are guilty of the immoral act.
On the other hand, if our use of Google does not make them more wealthy or more influential, then the answer is no, and we may be Remote Mediate Material Cooperators. In this case, we are not guilty when there is a proportionately serious reason to use Google.
I believe this is similar to the moral question of buying a package of chewing gum at a pharmacy. Our purchase of gum increases the profitability of the pharmacy, which increases the likelihood that the pharmacy will stay in business, which allows them to sell birth control products. When we buy a pack of gum, are we cooperating in evil?
If you want to avoid companies in the tech world that a conservative Christian cannot support, you’re really out of luck. You virtually can’t buy a smartphone that doesn’t have an operating system (e.g. android) and/or hardware from a company that is relatively supportive of things like abortion or gay marriage. Apple’s CEO is a gay man, something which matters nothing to me.
Honestly our world is so interlocked, it’s nearly impossible to avoid dealing with someone or something you disagree with.
It has, and I think that’s a good analogy. If I needed some cold and flu tablets, if there was a viable alternative, I would go there, but if not, I don’t think it cooperation by buying cold and flu tablets at a pharmacy that might also sell birth control.
I have no clue if the following is reasonable. Please advise.
The reality is that Google has expenses, labor, insurance, etc. in order to provide its normal service to users. In addition, Google has to pay taxes on its profitability. Google’s expenses come first. Then, one can talk about Google being more wealthy, that is, it has independent funds for personal use.
I do not pay money directly to Google. If I did, that money would first go to operational expenses, including funds for additional expansion, etc.
Personally, I use the Google search feature. It is rare that I find something additional. I am too busy writing. Even if I purchased something from a vendor, there is doubt that I am making Google so very wealthy because the profitability is not used on operating expenses.
I do not make independent donations specifically to kill babies. Step 2. My primary intention is to use the computer service. The computer service cannot kill babies. It is a mechanical device which does not have the power to donate money.
I have no clue if the above is reasonable. Please advise.
I agree, using Google would make us either Proximate Mediate Material Cooperators or Remote Mediate Material Cooperators. In the first case we would be guilty, in the second case, we would only be allowed to use Google if there is a proportionately serious reason. But I’m afraid that using a web search engine or watching an internet video are both activities unlikely to be justified by a proportionately serious reason. So, I believe we have reached a conclusion.