Not at all. I can like some parts of a thing without liking the whole thing. I can like some parts of a person without liking everything about them. There’s absolutely nothing “inconsistent” with liking the Pope when he advocates for the poor, but disliking him when he talks smack about people without kids. I can appreciate his advocacy on important issues without agreeing with the logic he uses to justify his support. I can set aside our philosophical differences when it comes to issues we both feel are important, and I can still highlight the flaws in his reasoning when he uses them to promote something I oppose.
But he had the same motivation in both cases; it doesn’t seem to me you liked him as a person in either case, but rather that you like it when he agrees with you. It’s like when any political figure happens to unexpectedly agree or disagree with you: you get to judge for yourself whether they are decent likeable people or whether you only like them for the act of agreeing with you politically.
~Max
So what?
Nobody in this thread knows the Pope “as a person.” We only know him as a spokesman for an international corporation.
He spoke on St. Joseph and on fighting poverty with the same intention in both instances; putting aside negligence (which is not relevant here), a person is reprehensible for an act only on account of his or her intentions; therefore if he is a reprehensible person for making the speech on St. Joseph, he is a reprehensible person for making the speech on fighting poverty.
~Max
If the Pope says, “Help the poor, because Jesus,” I can agree with him on the first part, but not the second. If he later says, “Screw the queers, because Jesus,” I can disagree with that entire statement. I’m not bound to stay silent on it because he previously said something I half-agree with.
That could have happened, but would have been followed by the priest telling the kid that they could never talk about it because it was their secret.
That kind of criticism is materially different than the one presented by the OP. You could have your own idea of what “because Jesus” means which agrees with the first case but not the second. The OP is an atheist and thus never agreed with a “because Jesus”, so she would have to disagree with both statements.
~Max
No, it’s exactly the same criticism, from the same premises. Are you under the impression that I’m some flavor of Christian? I assure you, I’m every bit as much an atheist as the OP. Maybe athier.
In the most common usage in Italian and in the man’s native Spanish, “egoísmo” means self-centeredness, not “rational self interest”, and is not a positive-value signifier.
Plus, what we may call “ethical non-altruism” (a-la Objectivism, among other philosophies) is generally not in agreement with Catholic Church values anyway.
I, too, see no inconsistency in liking some of the Pope’s statements and positions, and disliking others. I don’t really care why or how he reached those positions. He’s an incredibly influential person, and if he urges his flock to help the poor, or be more decent to homosexuals, I’m a fan. But when he urges his flock to guilt their childless friends or when he shuts down Catholic charities rather than let them place desperate children with gay couples, i can be angry.
I think calling somebody egotistic, in English, is generally meant to denigrate them.
Why would an atheist not believe in altruism?
No. They can still agree with the “help the poor” part.
Sorry, I misread your post.
Wouldn’t you say any belief that entails prejudice against queers is reprehensible?
- Any belief that entails prejudice against queers is a reprehensible belief
And wouldn’t you say an action motivated by a reprehensible belief is reprehensible by association?
- Any act motivated by a reprehensible belief is reprehensible
Therefore,
- Any act motivated by a belief that entails prejudice against queers is reprehensible
So I would expect you to find both statements to be reprehensible.
I’ll take your word for it and back down.
~Max
So, because I object to the Catholic church opposing gay rights, I’m somehow obligated to also oppose them running soup kitchens?
I have to figure that I’m misunderstanding your point on some level, because that’s just about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
You don’t have to oppose them running soup kitchens in general, only running soup kitchens for reasons which entail opposition to gay rights.
~Max
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. If you mean that I should oppose the Catholic Church for running a soup kitchen that refuses to feed gay people, sure. If you’re saying I should oppose the Catholic Church for running a soup kitchen because they think Jesus wants them to run a soup kitchen, because they also think that Jesus doesn’t want gay people to get married, that’s back in the “stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” territory.
This one.
ETA: I don’t claim to read your mind. From your point of view, why is the one act more wrong-headed than the other if they share the same motivation?
~Max
I’m not Miller, but the actual act matters more than the motivation behind it, IMHO.
This is a pretty fascinating high-wire act, Max.
It smacks of “kind hearted bigotry --” the stuff we’ve all heard way too much of in our time (eg, “I’m not racist but I draw the line at interracial marriages”).
I don’t particularly care about the Pope’s “motivation” (or rationalization, or excuse). I applaud the soup kitchens and loathe the bigotry.
My favorite restaurant makes lousy French Onion Soup, but [wait for it] it’s still my favorite restaurant.
It’s as though you’re trying to eliminate any semblance of nuance from people’s perspectives on PFrancis.
Which seems weird.
Because feeding the hungry is a good thing, and oppressing gay people is a bad thing.
That’s probably the root of the disagreement, because unless there’s some kind of moral negligence, the bad motivation matters more to me than the good act.
~Max
edited to add the italicized words, after below reply