The above title is the title of Life Report’s
latest podcast (to this date).
Before answering this question myself, I will give a brief analysis of Life Report’s discussion on the topic.
(sidenote: if you did not watch Life Report’s podcast, I recommend you clicking on the link above and doing so before reading the rest of this).
For those of you who are unaware of what Relay for Life is, it is a massive fundraiser to help fund research and awareness for those with cancer, as the Life Report team discuss at the beginning of their podcast.
If you would like to learn more about it, you can check out the Relay for Life
website.
The main controversy between pro-lifers over whether or not to do Relay for Life is this: Relay for Life donates it’s money to the American Cancer Society, which donates some of it’s money to human embryonic stem cell researchers. Such research encourages the destruction of human embryos, and thus human beings with the right to life, in order to attempt to come up with cures to diseases that currently do not have any.
Thus, to be clear, what is NOT disputed is whether or not a pro-lifer can directly support human embryonic stem cell research; they can’t, and virtually all pro-lifers understand this. What is in dispute is if pro-lifers can be morally justified in donating to an organization, and in particular Relay for Life, even if that organization may very well give some of that money to a human embryonic stem cell researcher.
The opinions of the three hosts of Life Report (Josh, Liz, and Andrew) differ. Josh believes that pro-lifers should, at the very least, think twice about donating to Relay for Life, but should also probably not do so. Liz believes that it can be morally acceptable to donate money to Relay for Life, though she personally would not do so. And Andrew also believes that it can be morally acceptable, but it seems implied that he himself would be willing to donate money to Relay for Life as well.
Liz asks what is probably the most pertinent question of the debate: “Where do you draw the line of responsibility that you have?” The rest of the podcast seems to focus on this question in one form or another.
For example, Josh says that he is not much into boycotting companies, such as food organizations, that donate money to Planned Parenthood or the like. Andrew then calls him out on it and questions why Josh doesn’t boycott those companies but decides that Relay for Life is worth boycotting, to which Josh responds that the research he has uncovered about the funding involved in Relay for Life in relation to HESCR (human embryonic stem cell research) appears to be very troubling.
They then go into the fact that we have to pay taxes and oftentimes that tax money goes to abortion and HESCR. Andrew brings up the idea of not paying taxes for such things even though we are legally obligated to do so. Josh responds that it would be better to just follow the law and pay the taxes because, ultimately, he will be able to “counterweigh” what little amount of money he is forced to give to such organizations. Liz finds problems with this logic, however, and I think she is right to do so. Liz says that it ultimately destroys Josh’s reasons for boycotting Relay for Life in the first place. I think it actually does something much worse than that. Such logic seems to be quite utilitarian in its nature; on the surface of it, it seems to completely ignore that there are some things that are just wrong to do, regardless of how much good is counterweighed. For instance, if I could save 1,000,000 people’s lives but I would have to kill one innocent little child to do it then should I do it? Most people, including Josh, would probably say no, even though the good “counterweighs” the bad. Now obviously this situation does not apply to what the debate is focusing on. I’m simply stating that it seems that a fundamental aspect of morality was forgotten in Josh’s logic.
A little later on, Liz talks about how she enjoys eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, even though it is on a list of organizations to boycott due to their support of Planned Parenthood (if you want to learn more about this boycott list, go
here).
Andrew and Josh question her on that, asking why she would not stop buying that ice cream (especially since there are other ice cream companies that she could buy from that do not donate money to PP).
Her response, essentially, is that we don’t know how much of it is actually going, or if our money specifically is even going at all, to HESCR organizations; all we know is that our money is going to an organization that does use some of the money it receives to support HESCR.
This is a valid point, but I feel that it would have been better to add that she does not intend for her money to be used for immoral purposes, she simply is trading her money for the product they provide; what they do with it is up to them at that point.
There is more that is discussed in Life Report’s podcast, but what is written above is a good summary of it.
So what do I think of this issue?
Ultimately, I think it can be morally acceptable to participate in Relay for Life.
And I think the Principle of Double Effect can be helpful in determining this.
(Go
here to read one of my posts describing the basics of the Principle of Double Effect if you would like to learn more about it).
The good effect of donating money to Relay for Life is to be able to help provide money to research to stop cancer, and the bad effect is that some of that money may end up being used for HESCR.
So let’s apply the four criteria within the Principle to this situation:
- Is the act of donating money, regardless of its effects, morally evil? Obviously not. Donating money is at the very least a morally neutral action when it is apart from its effects.
- Is one intending the bad effect to happen, or merely forseeing it? And is there a way to attain the good effect of cancer research without achieving the bad effect? As to the first question, it is certainly possible to intend the good effect of donating to cancer research without intending the bad effect of some of that money going to HESCR. If one does intend the bad effect than they should not be donating to Relay for Life, though. The next question, however, is probably the most important part of the discussion: is their a way to achieve the good effect without achieving the bad effect? For example, Starbucks is one company that is on the boycott list, for they have donated money to Planned Parenthood. This part of the Principle may very well suggest that it would be better to not go to Starbucks; after all, there are plenty of other places where you can buy overpriced coffee without having to worry about some of your money going to PP.
I would argue, however, that for many people, at least, Relay for Life may be the only opportunity for them to donate to a cancer-curing research organization. To be sure, there are a number of cancer research organizations that do not donate money to any HESCR companies (as Josh mentions in the podcast). However, many people cannot donate to these other organizations, either due to ignorance, lack of access to services, etc. Relay for Life, after all, is a massive organization that is easily accessible to the general public (it may very well be the only organization that is easily accessible to the general national public on the level that it is). Furthermore, when it comes to cancer research there does not seem to be anyone better than the American Cancer Society, both in its magnitude and its scope. Thus, even though it is possible in theory to donate to other cancer research organizations, it may not be possible for the general U.S. population to do so, and it may not be possible to be able to do so with another organization without it being a significantly lesser organization in its reputation of cancer research.
- Is the bad effect of money being given to HESCR organizations causing the good effect, or is the act itself causing the good effect? Most certainly the latter. Relay for Life does not make its contributors donate to HESCR organizations first to be able to then give more money to cancer researchers.
- Does the good effect sufficiently compensate for the allowing of the bad effect? I think there is in fact sufficient compensation for the allowing of the bad effect. Cancer is an extremely serious issue and research needs to be funded for it. If the organization itself that you were donating to was doing the HESCR then the proportionality would not be acceptable. But seeing as how Relay for Life does not directly do HESCR and only gives money to an organization that uses some of its money to give to HESCR companies, it can be sufficiently compensated for by the millions of dollars that it uses in its cancer research.
This is my view using the Principle of Double Effect. But notice that I said above that it can be helpful to use the Principle. Ultimately, however, the Principle is not able to truly address every sing situation that involves what we should boycott and what we should not, not because the Principle itself is flawed but because there is no moral theory that can draw a hard moral line on this issue. As the Life Report podcast implied, it is ultimately impossible to determine the moral line that we should not go over when it comes to the issue of who to donate money to.
I would just like to make clear, however, that I am not saying that this entire debate is a morally relativistic issue; we can determine objective moral truths involving when we should or should not donate money. For example (and this example was used in the podcast) if a man mowing your lawn said that 50% of what you pay him will go to PP, then just about all pro-lifers should agree that we should not hire that person because 50% is just too much.
What I am saying, though, is that when it gets down to the nitty gritty details of how much is too much, we cannot possibly know on a universal level. In other words, there is some kind of a moral line, but it is blurred. To go back to the lawnmower example, let’s say instead of 50% its 0.5%. Is it morally acceptable to hire him then? Some may not want to, which would be fine. But it seems that it would also be fine to choose to hire him since it is an extremely low amount, combined with the fact that you don’t intend for him to do so and simply have the foreknowledge that he will.
Some people would say that if you know they are donating to bad organizations, regardless of the amount, then you should boycott them. This reasoning, however, seems ridiculous to me. This is not to say that people should not do so; it only means that people should not have to do so. To do so would mean, in order to be consistent, practically inhuman amounts of research into anything and everything that you buy from for the rest of your life. In all honesty, I do not think it is possible to do this without having to grow, build, and make everything yourself, since almost every organization/group of people working for an organization do something with the money they receive from you for immoral purposes.
In conclusion, I would say that, up to a point, we have a moral obligation to refrain from donating to various organizations. But once we get past that point and get into small amounts of monetary donations that we do not truly intend to happen in the first place, then it seems that it should be left up to the individual as to whether or not to donate to that organization. Specifically in relation to Relay for Life, it is unclear how much of their donations goes to HESCR (as Liz states in the podcast), but it is difficult to imagine it being a large percentage. Thus, as long as the person donating to Relay for Life only intends for his/her money to be used for cancer research then it CAN be morally acceptable to participate in and financially contribute to Relay for Life.
