Was Mother Teresa really that bad?

[KingMerv00]

I saw Penn and Teller's BS! on religious icons recently. I have to say that their commentary on Mother Teresa left me kind of unconvinced. Basically, they said:

1) Mother Teresa accepted stolen money from unsavory people.

One could counter that this blood money was ultimately used for a greater good.


2) Alot of the money donated to her cause was used to contruct nunneries and missions instead of used to lessen the suffering of the poor.

What if she thought that the spread of Catholicism was the best good possible? For the record, I don't agree with that concept. I am merely saying that she might have just been wrong...not evil.


3) She did nothing to stop the physical suffering of those in her care. She felt that corporal suffering would bring them closer to Jesus.

Let's say she failed to act and her philosophy is creepy. On the other hand, who among us is aiding the poor at all? She kept no one against their will (as far as I know) and tended to their emotional and spiritual needs. I have not helped the poor at all. Am I despicable?


I'm sure she wasn't perfect. I'm sure she wasn't the flawless saint she is made out to be. At TAM3, Christopher Hitchens called her every name in the book. Did I miss something?

[Darat]

Yes she was, she believed that some people should suffer.

Now you may say that is because she thought that "was for the best", but that line of reasoning means that the word "bad" or "evil" can never really be used to describe anyone.

[Aoidoi]

Well, I think the point of the show is that she certainly wasn't "saintly" in the general sense of the word. She deliberately allowed suffering that she could have alleviated, and her view as a flawless moral icon is glossing over some rather disturbing issues.

Whether someone who works with the poor with questionable results is better than someone who does nothing is one of those fun philosophical questions, but I think the point is that you can make some very strong arguments that Mother Teresa was not the icon of pure Catholic benevolence she's been made out to be.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Darat
Yes she was, she believed that some people should suffer.

Now you may say that is because she thought that "was for the best", but that line of reasoning means that the word "bad" or "evil" can never really be used to describe anyone.

What specifically did she say and what was the source?

Did she ever directly CAUSE suffering?

Don't think I am trying to go easy on her. I am merely ignorant of what she did with her life. The little I do know seems nebulous at best.

[bignickel]

Well, you could read some of the stuff that Hitchens has to say about her.

Googling Hitchens and "mother theresa" produces:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

[Darat]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
What specifically did she say and what was the source?

Did she ever directly CAUSE suffering?

Don't think I am trying to go easy on her. I am merely ignorant of what she did with her life. The little I do know seems nebulous at best.

Almost bedtime for me, and I don’t have any handy links to hand. My argument rests upon the fact that she was a Roman Catholic and that religion believes that personal suffering "earns" someone their salvation. She thought suffering was good, and that was why she didn’t use effective pain relief in her "clinics". There are some speeches of hers I've read in the past that indicates she believed there was something inherently "beautiful" in poor people suffering, that somehow the suffering was a gift from God (or rather Jesus). If I get chance and no one else provides them I’ll look for some links to her own words on the subject tomorrow.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by bignickel
Well, you could read some of the stuff that Hitchens has to say about her.

Googling Hitchens and "mother theresa" produces:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

A quote from your link:

FI: Hence the title of your book: The Missionary Position.

HITCHENS: That has got some people worked up. Of the very, very few people who have reviewed this book in the United States, one or two have objected to that title on the grounds that it's "sophomoric." Well, I think that a triple entendre requires a bit of sophistication.

FI: And your television program in the United Kingdom was called "Hell's Angel."

HITCHENS: Yes, very much over my objection, because I thought that that name had not even a single entendre to it. I wanted to call it "Sacred Cow."


LOL....Sacred Cow....whether he is right or wrong....that's just plain funny.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
Now you may say that is because she thought that "was for the best", but that line of reasoning means that the word "bad" or "evil" can never really be used to describe anyone. Darat, would you mind trying to define what you mean by "bad" or "evil"? I see so many posts around here which seem to imply some concept of a moral absolute, as opposed to the relativistic definitions of morality as being simply a type of behaviour which has evolved to benefit society as a whole even at the expense of the individual who is carrying out the "right" action. But then when I ask whether the poster does in fact accept the existence of a moral absolute, the answer is no, they don't.

Can you perhaps explain?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Darat, would you mind trying to define what you mean by "bad" or "evil"? I see so many posts around here which seem to imply some concept of a moral absolute, as opposed to the relativistic definitions of morality as being simply a type of behaviour which has evolved to benefit society as a whole even at the expense of the individual who is carrying out the "right" action. But then when I ask whether the poster does in fact accept the existence of a moral absolute, the answer is no, they don't.

Can you perhaps explain?

Rolfe.

When I use the terms as I do in this thread I am meaning a "moral absolute" but I recognise that just means a moral absolute for me. In other words I am quite happy with making judgments based on what I believe to be good and bad even though I also know there isn’t an agreed objective measure of good and bad, that all such judgments are in essence subjective (although of course being subjective does not mean that they can not be explained by for example biology).

I do subscribe (at least partly) to the idea of utilitarianism for a good starting point on determining what is good and bad (I describe my “personal philosophy� as – “A smattering of Bentham style utilitarianism, with a dash of Pragmatism shading towards Instrumentalism all mixed with a measure of disdain for –isms�). However contrary to that I also place a high value on individuals to be free from coercion. Which of course results in a “moral code� that isn’t totally logical and even when applied consistently to each to each and every situation doesn’t always result in an answer I agree with!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I saw Penn and Teller's BS! on religious icons recently. I have to say that their commentary on Mother Teresa left me kind of unconvinced. Basically, they said:

1) Mother Teresa accepted stolen money from unsavory people.

One could counter that this blood money was ultimately used for a greater good.


But shouldn't the people the money was stolen from make that call? They weren't given the option.

[ReFLeX]

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa):In the aftermath of the Bangladesh Liberation War, it was determined that more than 450,000 women in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had been systematically raped, giving birth to a few thousand war-babies. Even in these circumstances, she asserted her rejection of abortion by publicly renouncing abortion as an option and by calling upon the women left behind to keep their unborn children. She characterized her views later when asked in 1993 about a 14-year-old rape victim in Ireland, "Abortion can never be necessary... because it is pure killing."

[HarryKeogh]

she was a hypocrite:

suffering is a gift from God. easy to believe this when you get flown to the Mayo Clinic when you're ill.

divorce is wrong and she campaigned to keep it illegal in Ireland. Yet, said Princess Diana's (her friend and benefactor) divorce was acceptable.

[shemp]

Any truth to the rumors that she practiced cannibalism?

[Kilik]

Not that you guys accept this or anything, but her water didn't freeze perfectly in the water oracle test

http://www.wellnessgoods.com/messages.asp

[sophia8]

suffering is a gift from God. easy to believe this when you get flown to the Mayo Clinic when you're ill.
Quite. She stated on several occasions that suffering bought people closer to God. So, when she got sick, why didn't she take a bed in one of her own clinics where she could set an example in suffering?
She had several bouts of treatment in private hospitals and clinics, in Switzerland and America, travelling by jet each time. It's possible that it was all paid for by generous patrons, with not a penny coming out of her charity - but how much suffering in India could have been relieved by that kind of cash?

And I believe that the many domestic Indian charities, both religious and secular, were pretty PO'd by the picture she persistently painted of India as a backward country where nobody but a few Western Christians cared about the poor and sick.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
When I use the terms as I do in this thread I am meaning a "moral absolute" but I recognise that just means a moral absolute for me. In other words I am quite happy with making judgments based on what I believe to be good and bad even though I also know there isn’t an agreed objective measure of good and bad, that all such judgments are in essence subjective (although of course being subjective does not mean that they can not be explained by for example biology).

I do subscribe (at least partly) to the idea of utilitarianism for a good starting point on determining what is good and bad (I describe my “personal philosophy� as – “A smattering of Bentham style utilitarianism, with a dash of Pragmatism shading towards Instrumentalism all mixed with a measure of disdain for –isms�). However contrary to that I also place a high value on individuals to be free from coercion. Which of course results in a “moral code� that isn’t totally logical and even when applied consistently to each to each and every situation doesn’t always result in an answer I agree with! Fair enough, but in that case, if another person sincerely holds a different view from you as to what is good or bad, how indeed can you call them "evil"? If it's just a personal disagreement?Now you may say that is because she thought that "was for the best", but that line of reasoning means that the word "bad" or "evil" can never really be used to describe anyone.I agree. If "good" or "bad" are just personal opinions, how can you call someone "evil" just because their sincerely held belief about what is right differs from yours?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Fair enough, but in that case, if another person sincerely holds a different view from you as to what is good or bad, how indeed can you call them "evil"? If it's just a personal disagreement?


My most honest answer has to be "I'm human" and since humans make judgements about one another that's what I do.

Originally posted by Rolfe

I agree. If "good" or "bad" are just personal opinions, how can you call someone "evil" just because their sincerely held belief about what is right differs from yours?

Rolfe.

The simple answer is because I have a definition of what evil is i.e. (simplest form) purposely causing harm to another person without consent and with no regard for them or society. Therefore someone who acts in such a way is evil.

How do I decide that is the definition I use? Well it isn't just "because that feels right" although my feelings do play a part of it. I believe there are some tools that can help me (in a human sense) to understand what my definition really means, that help me understand the consequences of using that definition to make judgments.

Does it mean I can be 100% confident in saying “That person is evil�? Not at all but I do think it means my judgments of someone being “evil� are less subjective (and can be supported by reason) then say a judgement by (for example) a Christian or a Muslim who can only ever make a totally subjective judgement.

[Moose]

[Edited: Never mind, should have read the rest of the thread first.]

[Darat]

Originally posted by Moose
Can they ever really, Darat? I like your sig.

I've thought a lot about it and I think they can be. Let me quote a reply I made from a thread that was about someone who most people Know would describe as "evil" – Hitler - in which I also quoted myself:

Originally posted by pmckean

...snip...

Let me give you a provocative example; Adolf Hitler. Here is a man whose actions led to acts of brutal barbarity on an enormous scale. He persecuted and murdered minorities and usurped other nations. His philosophies were misguided and his actions cataclysmic.

So was he evil?

Might one say that despite the undoubted wrongs he presided over, he was doing what he erroneously believed to be the right thing for his nation? Did he order atrocities out of sheer badness - an evil purpose, arguably, or because he and his cliche believed they were a means to an end?

I think you have a good question there. In a discussion about Hitler that happened here a long time ago I posted this:

By Darat
As for his actions, HS4 has elegantly explained, they are totally consistent and in fact only make sense if Hitler believed in what he said.

I know it is quite horrendous to think that Hitler’s actions in any way can be said to make “sense� or were “justified�. I’ve always held that he was “insane� and that was why he did what he did - however perhaps his insanity was really his “theistic� beliefs that he then used to rationalise his actions.

Hitler may have been, if you accept the premise his beliefs were based on, totally “justified�. And people wonder what harm beliefs not based on empirical evidence can do.


I can just about accept that Hitler himself believed he was doing good, and therefore he probably would have believe his actions were good. For me it is a hard concept to accept since I believe his actions were wrong and evil. But that is because I define evil as being some of the things Hitler did and condoned rather then necessarily believing "evil" has some actual existence or is an objective measure of an action.

It is a fact that there are people even today who consider Hitler's actions right and good. I find that fact unsettling but I think it does lead credence to the argument that good and evil are completely relative and depend on what you choose to believe in.



Perhaps what I mean when I say someone is evil is rather then meaning that the person is evil I am saying that their actions were evil. But then again it isn’t just their actions, in extreme examples I find it very hard to consider the person separate from their actions, as in the example of Hitler above. I still believe Hitler was insane and evil even though he may have considered himself doing good.

[bruto]

I'm no great fan of Mother Teresa, and I think at best her use of resources was less efficient than it should have been, but I do wonder if that means the world would have been better off had she not practiced at all. Does her failure to do what we would have liked to see her do constitute net harm? Can we reasonably assume that the donations she used so poorly would have been better used, or even made at all, if she had not been around? I realize that history doesn't much allow for controlled experiments, but are we confusing "bad" with "not good enough?"

Many people who try to do what they think is right and important fall short of what others think is right and important, but I think we have to guard against what I think of as "moral triage." Whatever cause or action you choose, whether it be animal rights, clean air, promoting science, distributing Bibles, or treating sick children, it's pretty certain someone will say something else is more important, more worthy, more pressing. As Jesus (you know, that guy some of us still think might have existed) is reported to have said, "the poor we will always have with us," and if you insist on curing the world's ills from the top down it's likely nothing at all will ever be solved. I think we're better off trying to do what we think we can do best.

That said, I reiterate that I'm still no fan of Mother Teresa, who I believe was highly overrated, overfunded and fundamentally misguided. Nonetheless, I suspect that even so her contribution to the world may have been greater than its cost.

[ReFLeX]

But doesn't it drive you nuts when someone is trying to come up with an example of a completely charitable person, say, to refute psychological egoism, and the first thing they come up with is Mother Teresa? Gak.

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by bruto
I'm no great fan of Mother Teresa, and I think at best her use of resources was less efficient than it should have been, but I do wonder if that means the world would have been better off had she not practiced at all. Does her failure to do what we would have liked to see her do constitute net harm? Can we reasonably assume that the donations she used so poorly would have been better used, or even made at all, if she had not been around? I realize that history doesn't much allow for controlled experiments, but are we confusing "bad" with "not good enough?"

We can reasonably say that some very rich people (both "good" and "bad") would have had more money. We can reasonably say that many middle-class and poor people also would have had more money in the pockets. Since most of the money she collected went to missionaries and nunneries, it is likely there might be a few thousand less Catholics and nuns or priests on the planet. Given that virtually none of the money donated to her went to relieve the suffering or improve the health of poor people (even though most folks thought that was what their donations would achieve), we can pretty reasonably say that the world in general is no better off as a result Mother Theresa and her work.

We might also reasonably postulate that without her the world might actually be marginally better. If the people who donated to her had instead given money to organizations that actually relieved, instead of promoted, suffering and which did indeed strive to improve the nourishment and medical treatment of impoverished peoples in the world... wouldn't all of those people be better off? So, if we accept that this is a reasonable case then in fact the net effect of Mother Theresa was to make the world a more miserable place for the very ill and impoverished.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by rdtjr
We can reasonably say that some very rich people (both "good" and "bad") would have had more money. We can reasonably say that many middle-class and poor people also would have had more money in the pockets. Since most of the money she collected went to missionaries and nunneries, it is likely there might be a few thousand less Catholics and nuns or priests on the planet. Given that virtually none of the money donated to her went to relieve the suffering or improve the health of poor people (even though most folks thought that was what their donations would achieve), we can pretty reasonably say that the world in general is no better off as a result Mother Theresa and her work.

We might also reasonably postulate that without her the world might actually be marginally better. If the people who donated to her had instead given money to organizations that actually relieved, instead of promoted, suffering and which did indeed strive to improve the nourishment and medical treatment of impoverished peoples in the world... wouldn't all of those people be better off? So, if we accept that this is a reasonable case then in fact the net effect of Mother Theresa was to make the world a more miserable place for the very ill and impoverished.

If we take for granted that mother Teresa diverted money into nunneries when she shouldn't have and failed to stop physical pain, do we still have justification to say she did more harm than good?

Like it or not, she has become an icon. That legend has undoubtedly inspired many to become more selfless. Now that she is dead, does it help the world to trash her now? Would it actually be better for humanity to leave her legacy intact even if it was a lie so that others may follow her imaginary path?

I am undecided. I am likewise undecided on whether or not religion in general is good for society. Sometimes pretty lies are best.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Now that she is dead, does it help the world to trash her now? She was trashed then, too. Even catholic churches criticized her allegiances with the Chevalier family, the brutal dictators who she gave an award to. Yet most people continue to think of her as pure good, while there are much more deserving altruists out there. I only first heard of Raoul Wallenburg last year...

[bignickel]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
If we take for granted that mother Teresa diverted money into nunneries when she shouldn't have and failed to stop physical pain, do we still have justification to say she did more harm than good?

Since that money was EARMARKED to go to places suffering famine, she and her crew instead diverted it to the 'holy' coffers of The Church. We're talking envelopes marked "for famine relief in Africa", and the contents being sent to Rome instead.

If that isn't stealing under false pretences, then I don't know what is.

As for being an example: what total bs! People have a natural inclination to be charitable in the face of disaster; giving Theresa credit for generous human nature is just plain silly.

All she ended up doing was siphoning off money that would have actually reached the people who needed it, and diverted it to the Church.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
I do think it means my judgments of someone being “evil� are less subjective (and can be supported by reason) then say a judgement by (for example) a Christian or a Muslim who can only ever make a totally subjective judgement. Could you explain that? I really don't understand. Why should the judgements of a Christian or a Muslim as to what is evil be any more subjective than yours?

I still seem to sense that you are somehow setting your judgements of what is right and wrong against some sort of "absolute" right and wrong. That you really do feel that cruelty is wrong, in an absolute sense, and kindness is right. Not just that you think that cruelty is harmful to society and kindness useful to it (though even there, does that not imply that "the good of society" is in some way an absolute good?).

The only difference as I see it is that a Christian (and I presume a Muslim) would agree that there is indeed such a thing as absolute good, and that judgements made by mortals that kindness is good and cruelty is bad (or even that society is a good thing that we ought to support) are real "visions" (if you like) of this absolute. Of course, being mortal, people may be mistaken and they may be very badly wrong (as Mother Theresa may have been very badly mistaken or wrong), but we can have a reasonable conversation about it, because we're not just stating our own subjective opinions but believe that we are trying to discover within ourselves this sense of the absolute moral law which exists independently from our opinions.

I find it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation about good and evil without this assumption at the back of the discussion. I realise that many posters on this forum don't have this difficulty, which is why I ask. But in the answers I still seem to see people doing the same as I do - trying to find within themselves as best they can what is "truly" good or evil.

I'm probably just not understanding you properly, but if you think you can explain it any more clearly, I'd be grateful.

Rolfe.

[Jyera]

Perhaps Voldemore (of harry potter fame) was right.

Voldemore said to Harry Potter... (something to this effect)
"There is no good or evil, only power and those who seek it."

So perhaps it is meaningless to obtain absolute judgement of the goodness and badness of Mother Teresa.

But it is undeniable that she has much power.
Power to influnence, inspire and help people.

If it is true that she "misappropriated" some funds, apparently without negative impact to her reputation and image, then perhaps she is indeed powerful. Powerful enough to be able to do so.

It remains to be seen, if those people who tries to discredit Mother Tereasa, are indeed powerful.

Rolf, you talked about people trying to find in themselves "good" and "evil".

Perhaps they are wrong.
Perhaps we can never gain "good" and/or "evil" . We'll never lose "good" and/or "evil".
But we do gain and lose "power".

We do gain and lose "reputation". Gain or lose reputation for being good or for being evil. And what is reputation but a tool to assert influnence and thus power.

[Aoidoi]

Jyera: Doesn't that philosophy just mean "might makes right?" Nicely Machiavellian, but it seems a bit lacking. It fails, for example, to differentiate in any meaningful way between Stalin and FDR (they had roughly analagous amounts of power, after all).

While not well versed in ethics or morality, I do feel that one can make judgements of others based on more than their "power."

One can argue details of her life, but I think it's the appearance of hypocrisy in Mother Theresa's words and actions that galls people. Barring a massive change in circumstance, no one will ever call me a saint. But then I'm not the devil, either. It's real easy to decide famous people are larger than life and must be one or the other. Penn & Teller point out that it's real hard to call her a saint when you look into what she really did. Unfortunately I haven't read "Missionary Position" to find out if one can make a valid argument for the devil argument, but I suspect it's equally difficult to demonstrate.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I still seem to sense that you are somehow setting your judgements of what is right and wrong against some sort of "absolute" right and wrong. That you really do feel that cruelty is wrong, in an absolute sense, and kindness is right. Not just that you think that cruelty is harmful to society and kindness useful to it (though even there, does that not imply that "the good of society" is in some way an absolute good?). Can I answer this? I think I see where this conversation is going.

Before I kick in on my main theme, could I point out that in your post you have used the word "absolute" several times without defining it --- and I should like to see you try.
___________

Now, here's what I wanted to say about moral philosophy.

There is a legend that when the Buddha was born, the first thing he did when he popped out was to speak, and that his words were: "I alone in heaven and on earth am the honoured one". It seemed to me like a stupid fable, but I now see it as a moral parable. The first thing we believe from birth --- actually, it cannot be said in the plural --- the first thing I believed from birth is that I alone in heaven and on earth am the honoured one.

You write (in response to Darat) :I still seem to sense that ... you really do feel that cruelty is wrong ... and kindness is right. So he does. So do I. And as "I alone in heaven and on earth..."

You may ask: does not the psychopath hold to the same philosophy? To which I reply: yes, so do we all. It is not a question of philosophy, but one of feeling. His philosophy may --- must --- be the same as mine. I will knock him down, if I have the need and the opportunity, not for committing the "crime" of moral solipsism --- of which we are all guilty --- but for his feelings and, above all, for his actions, which are not to my taste.
____________________

OK, we really should take this over to R&P. I can see an interesting discussion developing.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Could you explain that? I really don't understand. Why should the judgements of a Christian or a Muslim as to what is evil be any more subjective than yours?
Because there at least exists a single objective account of what is evil that their belief dictates to them in the form of scripture. They either subscribe to it or they aren't true believers. Of course, by that definition, not many of them are "true believers," but churches will lecture about specific passages that they see as important, and their followers must abide or be outcast. Seventh-day Adventists (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Seventh-day%20Adventist), for example.

[Ossai]

KingMerv00
Like it or not, she has become an icon. That legend has undoubtedly inspired many to become more selfless. Now that she is dead, does it help the world to trash her now?
Truth is preferable over a comforting lie. Especially if that lie is going to cause others similar suffering or harm.

Ossai

[DavoMan]

I just plain don't like christianity. :p
Although if you play the odds, people with the whole '100% good' reputation turn out to be nasty or partly nasty people.

Someone told me once 'never put people on a pedastle [or in the spotlight] because you will only find faults in them'.

In other words, people aren't 100% perfect. They have faults and are different from you in some way that makes them less than perfect.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by Darat
[B
(snip)...I do subscribe (at least partly) to the idea of utilitarianism for a good starting point on determining what is good and bad (I describe my “personal philosophy� as – “A smattering of Bentham style utilitarianism, with a dash of Pragmatism shading towards Instrumentalism all mixed with a measure of disdain for –isms�). However contrary to that I also place a high value on individuals to be free from coercion. Which of course results in a “moral code� that isn’t totally logical and even when applied consistently to each to each and every situation doesn’t always result in an answer I agree with! [/B]

Good grief. I believe I may be a Daratist, albeit in the provisional wing- ie I think shooting some people is a universal good, including for the person shot.

ETA- Rolfe- Do YOU subscribe to a theory of moral absolutes?

My working definition of morality is "Individual survival behaviour in a herd context." The implication being that a compromise must be reached between benefit to the individual and to the herd. The herd usually has the deciding vote- and all the guns. But that may be changing.
Technology now gives one person, or a small group of people, the ability to take actions which affect millions, possibly billions. In such a case I can see how a small group might enhance it's advantage at the cost of billions of lives. By my definition that would be a moral act.

Can a man, alone, on a classic cartoon desert island, commit an immoral act?

It's the same question, only simplified. The herd and the individual are now one and the same.

[DavoMan]

I find Offense is in the eye of the listener. :P

It's the person with the ears, not the mouth who decides what is 'offensive' and complains about it.
Why oh why is the politically correct world on the side of the person who doesnt want to hear anything they don't like?

But yeah mother teresa was a bitch. Sorry, bitch is a relative term. To me it means lovely person. Mother teresa was a bitch.