Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin, Improve the Sinning?

Often enough, it seems that, to some degree or another, we must be tolerant of evil (whatever you take this to mean). Not that we intentionally seek evil, but we certainly acknowledge its presence and, perhaps more often than we’d like to think, shrug it off as the unavoidable consequence of being human. For example, we talk about “the lesser of two evils,” of “necessary evils,” and so on, thereby pardoning the imperfect conditions with which we are content to live.

Granted, it is a fact of life that evil does and will continue to exist. Given that this is the case, what is our ethical responsibility in accommodating these evils? Do we merely “hate the sin and love the sinner,” leaving them to their own destruction? Or do we strive to better facilitate the practices we are not in agreement with—but which inevitably exist—in an attempt to ameliorate the negative repercussions of these actions?

Much political debate has been sparked by those who choose the latter route. Given that teenagers will undoubtedly have sex, let’s provide them condoms. Given that homosexuality will undoubtedly continue to exist, let us not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual unions. Given that women will undoubtedly have abortions, let us make it legal and thereby ensure the procedure is a safe one. Given that prostitution undoubtedly will not go away, let us make it legal, imposing strict governmental regulations and guidelines that will prevent the spread of disease and violence that often permeates such vocations. Similar examples exist regarding marijuana usage and so on.

So is this the answer? Is this justified? This is not meant to fuel discussion on any of the issues I have used as an example, but on the overarching theme of this post: how far should we go in accommodating the practices we would otherwise discourage, provided it will alleviate some of their negative consequences? Please note, I am not making an ethical claim about any of these issues. It is well-known that these issues are often viewed within an ethical framework. Please keep discussions on the topic at hand. Thank you.

-----

Added June 6, 2005:

I have been told by at least one person that the overall point of this post was not entirely clear. Therefore, I am adding this appendage in an effort to clarify. To begin with, I wish to reiterate that, while I cite many issues that are commonly viewed as issues of morality, I am not making a case for or against any of them. Granted, this post mentions both “evil” and homosexuality, just as it mentions both “sin” and abortion. I am not, however, trying to parallel these terms. However, it is a well-known fact that many people do link these terms, and that is central to the theme of my post.

And what is the theme again? It is this: supposing that you consider an action to be wrong—whether it is one that I have listed or not—how far should you go in accommodating it, provided this accommodation will reduce the negative impacts of the action?

Naturally, you can utilize any example you wish if it helps you make your point. Just as the point you are making may vary (e.g. you may argue that we should always accommodate something we don’t like if it lessens the harm done, or you may argue that we should never, to any degree, accommodate something we feel morally opposed to), so may the examples. You may use something I have brought up, or you may use something else. Plenty of examples exist. Gun control, euthanasia, gambling, etc. But it needn’t be something of vast political concern. How much leeway should you give your child to do something you feel opposed to, given that he/she may engage in worse activities otherwise? Should you demand a certain code of conduct and consider it his/her choice to suffer the consequences of living otherwise? Or do you compromise—morally—in the hopes of improving the situation?