Interesting post. One quick thought--the real debate here isn't between "morality" and "consquentialism" but between different theories of morality. Consequentialism needs to be filled in in terms of which consequences are 'good' and which are 'bad.' So, for example, the standard utilitarian (and consequentialist) proposition that 'an act is justified if and only if it increases overall social utility' is a moral theory, just as much as a non-consequentalist claim like 'an act is justified only if it respects a certain set of rights.' And that standard utilitartian proposition is in competition with other consequentialist moral theories that replace "overall social utility" with a range of other plausible goals (e.g., how much if at all are future generations weighed, should more weight be given to the position of the poor, should the environment be given any independent value, etc.).

this is the sort of thing which makes psychology useful. the stuff on morality is new and pretty contentious. for something more solid, check out the heuristics and biases program. it is good to know that medical doctors botch bayesian inference.

Thus, your relative place on these 2 spectrums becomes one of the most signficant political inclination markers out there… And the politics of India being what it is, there’s quite a bit of room for moral & political grandstanding with, shall we say, interesting consequences.

you can take the test. my results i interpreted through my bias toward libertarianism.

And that standard utilitartian proposition is in competition with other consequentialist moral theories that replace "overall social utility" with a range of other plausible goals (e.g., how much if at all are future generations weighed, should more weight be given to the position of the poor, should the environment be given any independent value, etc.).

right, but the shape of the norms are probably strongly biased by a common human cognitive architecture. that's why psychopaths are pathological; they lack the instinct which tells us us that disemboweling and infant to hear its screams of pain is abhorrent and should be subject to capital sanction. there are other interesting questions re: economics, for example, some people argue that the variation in human income (variance) is more important than the median. so we are happier, on average, if all of us are a bit poorer if that reduces the extremes (in particular, skewness toward the bottom). others would argue that some inequality is acceptable it if returns a lot in terms of shifting up the mean value.

2 · razib it is good to know that medical doctors botch bayesian inference.

Razib, that result is the artifact of the problem being posed it terms of probability. If it's restated in frequentist terms the physicians do fine. See the work of Gigerenzer.

yeah, i got it from gerd! i know his arguments that we are more rational than kahneman & tversky claim, but i don't buy it.

Cognitive Load and Moral Judgment.

Razib, that result is the artifact of the problem being posed it terms of probability. If it's restated in frequentist terms the physicians do fine. See the work of Gigerenzer.

more precisely, i think there is truth in both ways of looking at it (now i sound like an economist!). i have both gerd's and k & t's on my shelf without contradiction.

6 · razib yeah, i got it from gerd!

Uncanny!!

the research world is small.

If its motivation/intention you must remember that Bill Gates' original motivation behind setting up his foundation was as a PR ploy - at that time MS was fighting a Monopolies/Restrictive Trade practices lawsuit on the Windows product that was bundled into computers.
But as faith advocates always say - act as if you had faith and faith will be granted to you - and Bill Gates became a true practitioner, working in Africa, India (though that was because of vested economic interests, with half his employee base out of that country! I would say)..
In Mother Teresa's case, she wasn't advocating poverty - "their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care" is such a gross mischaracterization of her work - she was really running a poor country's poor man's hospice, where patients were just being given a dignified humane way to leave the "earthly garments" of their soul.

"Momma T was a great person, no doubt - practically a saint, no less - BUT, I tend to value an idea and action by its systemic, scalable, real world consequences"
As the old saying goes - where you stand depends upon where you sit - during M. Teresa's time 600 million of India was consumed in poverty; today that number may have edged down to 300, 400 million depending upon definitions, purchasing power, cost of living changes etc. - but if you were one of those leprosy-ridden, TB ridden, cholera-ridden, cancer-ridden, poor abandoned by all often even family, in a country with no social safety nets, and she and her nuns gave you a cold drink of water and stroked your hand or head before you took your last breath, you wouldn't need her to have given you western analgesics to rise from your grave and challenge her naysayers!

The big difference between the 3 is that Mother Teresa clearly intended to save people through direct, personal sacrifice.

Mainly the soul though. It was never clear if she intended to save people's lives as well.

We cannot ingnore the role of the media. Bill Gates always had a mixed realtionship with the media, while Norman Borlaug was hardly covered. (Bedsides, in the case of the Green revolution, there were several people involved, Indira Gandhi, MS Swaminathan, the ford foundation, in addition to Norman Borlaug, it is hard to say who made the greatest contribution).

The main diffrenece was Mother Theresa was a nice, feel good story. It was in everyones interest to perpetuate it, irrespective of the ground realities. I even had a chapter on her in school (don't remember which board either Maharashtra or TN) that potrayed her a a saint.

I do not think that if the points made in the article had been highlighted early in her career, she would have been regarded as a great person.

I do not think she even had any negative press before Hell's Angel. And by the time it was made, she had been a pillar of the establishment for decades, with the legitamcy conferred by awards such as the nobel prize and the bharat ratna.

Pinker's article confuses many things with morality: politics, media coverage, marketing, etc. Not well-written IMHO.

Morality in its pure distilled form has to be analyzed as an individual action directly affecting another individual. Abstracting it to levers, decisions, political demonstrations, carbon emissions and other Gedanken scenarios introduces crowd psychology, peer pressure and a host of other unrelated things.

Many of the readers of this blog are ABDs or DDs in the West. How does your family address the unequal monetary divide with relatives in India? It's a moral responsibility question many families struggle with at a personal level with relations in India. This question resonates with many folks more than the poverty issue, especially if you have close relations in India.

Interesting post...aside from rankings, I think there are some broader issues here, related to welfare and development:

Mother T was clearly a great force and I'm glad she blessed India by her presence and contributions.

What is interesting is the potential "global reach" of the works of Norm B. and Bill G. is remarkable. Indians are reaping (literally thanks to Norm's help!) great benefits from Green and Computing revolutions. However, equally intriguing are the situations in other South Asian countries--Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal--where these things are, in some sense, mostly sitting at the loading docks, to be picked up and embraced as tools for economic growth, prosperity, and stability. Communal discord, fragmented institutions, and unfavorable circumstances (in general) almost robs youngsters' future.

11 · WryPoster said

If its motivation/intention you must remember that Bill Gates' original motivation behind setting up his foundation was as a PR ploy - at that time MS was fighting a Monopolies/Restrictive Trade practices lawsuit on the Windows product that was bundled into computers.

That's BS. BillG knows that its the most efficient use of his money to create a legacy and do something good for the world. Its precisely why WarrenB decided to give most of his money to BillG's foundation rather than uncle sam. The anti-trust issue is unrelated and my contention is that it stands on its own merits, without any influence from BillG's setting up of a charitable foundation.

But as faith advocates always say - act as if you had faith and faith will be granted to you - and Bill Gates became a true practitioner, working in Africa, India (though that was because of vested economic interests, with half his employee base out of that country! I would say)..
In Mother Teresa's case, she wasn't advocating poverty - "their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care" is such a gross mischaracterization of her work - she was really running a poor country's poor man's hospice, where patients were just being given a dignified humane way to leave the "earthly garments" of their soul.

And the net utilitarian addition to the society from her actions??? ~zero.. Her own writings indicate that she started questioning her "faith" towards the end which made her do all those good things to poor people.

"Momma T was a great person, no doubt - practically a saint, no less - BUT, I tend to value an idea and action by its systemic, scalable, real world consequences"
As the old saying goes - where you stand depends upon where you sit - during M. Teresa's time 600 million of India was consumed in poverty; today that number may have edged down to 300, 400 million depending upon definitions, purchasing power, cost of living changes etc. - but if you were one of those leprosy-ridden, TB ridden, cholera-ridden, cancer-ridden, poor abandoned by all often even family, in a country with no social safety nets, and she and her nuns gave you a cold drink of water and stroked your hand or head before you took your last breath, you wouldn't need her to have given you western analgesics to rise from your grave and challenge her naysayers!

If there were more folks like BillG and NormanB, instead of mother teresa's of the world, the numbers won't have been as bad as 600million and the probability of being one of those would be significantly lower... Blame the socialist idealogy of the "well-intenders" rather than "consequentialists" for the lack of social safety nets. It has been unequivocally proven now based on the events of past few decades, that you can afford to be "socialists" only if you run the economy like "capitalists".

If I hear another "Mother Teresa" as in 'feel good', I may throw up.

Surely someone on SM has read "The Missionary Position" - it makes one think, even if you don't agree that she was gunning for dollars and sainthood. She was a shrewd, PR savvy person.

Incidently, she wasn't Indian, although there are many who still assume so.

In Mother Teresa's case, she wasn't advocating poverty - "their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care" is such a gross mischaracterization of her work - she was really running a poor country's poor man's hospice, where patients were just being given a dignified humane way to leave the "earthly garments" of their soul.

I want to believe that, but it is increasingly hard. I find it hard to counter that she didn't think much of the poor---she thought it was her duty towards her god that she care for them. This never bothered me---actions more important than motives, right?---but in the light of things I learnt later, this should have.

For one, she was radically opposed to abortion and family planning (in India). Ok, she was catholic, they are crazy that way. Still, her insistence that her patients not be taken to the hospital was what destroyed my image of her. Her claim was that the doctors wouldn't treat her---this is an accusation, mind you. From what I know of government hospitals---they are not any pretty Harischandra types for sure, but there is no way any doctor would have either the power or clout to oppose her (a Nobel prize winner with full government backing) if she wanted anyone to get better. For those who don't know, Government hospitals in India are obligated to treat patients for free. She never hired doctors either---and it can't have been due to lack of funding.

I find it really hard to believe that a communist ruled state would actively oppose a Nobel prize winner seeking treatment for her patients. You may believe it. But if you have lived in Calcutta, I doubt you will.

That leaves the uncomfortable conclusion I can't shake off. The destitute who went to her place probably had no hope---she denied them access to medical treatment. Again, in this case, it was--I would like to believe---not malice, but her religiosity that doomed her unfortunate patients. But I don't care for her motivation, it is criminal in my eyes. There will have been cases where medicine couldn't have helped, MT might have helped them the only way possible. But helping one and killing another doesn't even out.

Another thought---there are many like MT who have given their lives for service. I always thought---and I learnt in school---that MT was a unique and amazing person. It was one question of a friend that prompted me to dig up about MT and change my opinion about her uniqueness at least---he was a big fan of Ammachi. Now I have contempt for all godmen (and godwomen), and I am never one to hide my opinion. All he replied was this---Ammachi has probably done way more than MT, the only reason I respected MT but derided Ammachi was (i) MT was propped up by the world media because she fits the white man's (woman's) burden they still believe in (ii) Ammachi with her backward caste background and weird religious beliefs (the hugging part) never got respect from me because I haven't been programmed that way.

I laughed then, I am not laughing any longer. Ammachi may have religious beliefs I don't care for, but so did MT. But Ammachi doesn't showcase her destitute for world consumption---she gets them better with medicine. MT didnt even try. MT prevented family planning for poor families who desperately need them---dooming them to at least another generation of poverty. Ammachi builds schools. Who is the saint here?

She never hired doctors either---and it can't have been due to lack of funding.

Please read as "She never hired enough doctors either---and it can't have been due to lack of funding." She had visiting doctors at her charities, potentially she may have paid some.

I felt the same way as bytewords about Mother Teresa since I first read of all the hoopla in India when Hitchens' book on her came out. There is probably a lot of merit to the claim that she was blinded by her religious convictions, and denied the medical care that she could have afforded to the people in her care. However, my opinion of her has softened over time, only because a majority of the people she helped had been completely uncaringly cast out by society, and would probably have not got at least the minimal solace and care provided by her clinics, but would have died uncared for on the streets. What I cannot condone in the least, however, is how monomaniacal her perception of the clinic and her service became that she was willing to lend her support to people like the Duvaliers and Keating in exchange for their money. As for the inveterate hugger or the grand wazir of Whitehead, I think there is one difference between MT and them: The fraction of every dollar/rupee that is "spent" on the poor. These other god-shilla's skim liberally off the top for their palatial mansions, their air-conditioned Rolls Royces, and their elaborate entourage (apparently, "God helps those who help themselves") before they used what was left for helping the patients etc. I think MT lived the austerity she preached, which meant that more of the money given to her was used for medical care (although probably not as effectively) - and you can value that for what it's worth.

And to get more on topic with the post, people seem far more willing to condone moral atrocities when they are justified in the name of religion or culture. Examples include the denial of condoms and the active misinformation spread by the Vatican and evangelical Christians (and Bushies) on the issue of abstinence, which have probably had a fairly significant impact on individuals and families in Africa, and to a lesser extent, South America, as well as the systemic denial of rights to women in many Islamic Middle Eastern countries. (But, polygamy in Mormonism, or "cults" with a leader and a bunch of brainwashed acolytes in a compound seem to cause horror and revulsion, because their thoughts are not mainstreamed).

On the discussion of consequentialist views of morality: There is another related debate that philosophers engage in on the motivations of actions, and what that that implies about their morality. For example, Kant's theory of the categorical imperative asserts that actions can have moral value only if they are done purely with regard to moral duty, i.e. it is not enough if the results of the actions are consistent with a moral duty, but that the action itself should have been as part of performing a moral duty. One of the results of this notion is the endless tizzy that some people beat themselves into is whether an action is truly philanthropic if it gives the doer happiness, either as a primary or secondary effect (don't some schools of Christianity have this debate too?).

That ends my haphazard melange of thoughts, which it gave me great happiness to share :)

Its comments like these I dont quite get -"only because a majority of the people she helped had been completely uncaringly cast out by society, and would probably have not got at least the minimal solace and care provided by her clinics, but would have died uncared for on the streets."

Government hospitals are free to the poor, especially in the cities. Calcutta or Kolkata is one such city. Last I checked, people do avail of the help available in same. Please dont equate "being cast out by society" to "having to die uncared for on the streets".

19 · Rahul said

That ends my haphazard melange of thoughts, which it gave me great happiness to share :)

I think MT lived the austerity she preached, which meant that more of the money given to her was used for medical care (although probably not as effectively) - and you can value that for what it's worth.

- she was really running a poor country's poor man's hospice

In India we find that "morality" and "character" refers to sexuality mostly.

One could be the most moral person of high character but if they are single and sexually active without shame, well, they would be considered immoral and of low character.

Another factor to consider; if one is practically forced to act in what is considered a moral way, due to the influence of societal norms, family pressures or religion, can they really be said to be moral? Or is it the person with freedom of choice who choices to do the right thing consistently that is really moral?

Government hospitals are free to the poor, especially in the cities. Calcutta or Kolkata is one such city. Last I checked, people do avail of the help available in same. Please dont equate "being cast out by society" to "having to die uncared for on the streets".

Yes, they have access to government hospitals in theory, but I think you discount the power of social ostracism in practice, often due to a lack of awareness. There is a reason the phrase "became a leper" is used, and I don't think the staff of hospitals is free of these societal prejudices themselves. And what is an impoverished leper with no safety net who is not admitted going to do? Sue the hospital? If you doubt that medical professionals are capable of this behavior, you only need to look at the recent history of behavior towards AIDS patients, and I believe that such behavior is present even today in Africa, and during the early stages of AIDS understanding in the US (and even supposedly informed makers of public opinion, like, say, a certain Republican presidential flat-earther frontrunner, advocated quarantines as recently as the early 90s).

Rake! Bounder!

How exquisitely Kantian of you, Nina! But do you also think it makes my rakishness worse if I tilt my hat at a fashionable angle and revel in my caddishness?

Seems logical enough to assume, but according to former insiders it was'nt true/. Bacially the catholic church became richer.

I've read this and other critiques, and while it is definitely inconsistent and hidebound behavior, there is nothing in what I have read so far to indicate that the money gathered by the Missionaries of Charity was actually used for other catholic church agendas (as in Mother Teresa was a front for Vatican fundraising).

In India we find that "morality" and "character" refers to sexuality mostly.

Not just in India.

The big difference between the 3 is that Mother Teresa clearly intended to save people through direct, personal sacrifice.

--> So, intentions are as important as results ? What is the difference, then, between teresa and someone who does a thee midhi(walk on fire) for rain in his/her village ?

Modern India is benefitting from all 3 although lately, I’d wager in particular from the cheap, mass market computing & telecommunications revolution that Gates helped produce…

--> I would say Modern India is benefiting from 2 out of 3. In terms of results and scale, teresa doesnt even come close to the other 2.

The work of humanatarian organizations like Mother Teresa an others is commendable but India has enough downtrodden people and the world is rich enough ( including some in India ) that there will never be dearth of folks and organizations to patronize/help them. Therefore I personally give more credit to the likes of Gates, Borlaug who can make India and other third world countries more competitive to the west and help them stand up on their feet. ( though one can question the method, the trickle down effect by raising the bogey of digital divide, skewed crony capitalism etc. etc). I am sure many more people have come out of poverty indirectly through Gates and Borlaug than the charitable activities of Teresa. Sometimes it is like the endowments in a university. The humanities and other socially utilatarian programs are not so well funded by the govt. but rely on private donations mostly by organizations which in some way or other have made all the money through science, technology and business. But if with the progress in S&T there is no growth in socially useful activities then that is lopsided too and a recipe for disaster especially in a third world country.

As far as Gandhi being anti-semitic or not, an Indian should care less (about the world's moral opinion ) because at that time the highest priority issue/task for India was to get independence for by hook or crook ( remember everything is fair in love and war ). Now if India didn't get independence for a very long time because the Nazi/Japan ruled the world/India then in hindsight then we should have been concerned about Gandhi being semitic or not.

And so much for all the great moral work of sacrifice Vatican didn't bestow sainthood to Teresa and the Nobel committee didn't deem Gandhi good for Peace Prize. Thats why I belong to Subhash Chandra Bose's camp ( though I do give credits to Gandhi and Teresa's work )

As for the inveterate hugger or the grand wazir of Whitehead, I think there is one difference between MT and them: The fraction of every dollar/rupee that is "spent" on the poor.

These other god-shilla's skim liberally off the top for their palatial mansions, their air-conditioned Rolls Royces, and their elaborate entourage (apparently, "God helps those who help themselves") before they used what was left for helping the patients etc.

I think that is very contentious. MT spent very little on the poor, most on the poor's "souls", aka the church. The funding MOC receives is (and was for the last 30 years) an order of magnitude more than what "huggies" or shankara eye foundation manages. But both have better medical institutions in place already. So while the following may be true (I am not saying it is, but even if it is), if huggies is St. 10%, MT is probably St. 99%:

regarding this:

nothing in what I have read so far to indicate that the money gathered by the Missionaries of Charity was actually used for other catholic church agendas (as in Mother Teresa was a front for Vatican fundraising).

Also regarding:

only because a majority of the people she helped had been completely uncaringly cast out by society, and would probably have not got at least the minimal solace and care provided by her clinics, but would have died uncared for on the streets.

There will have been cases where medicine couldn't have helped, MT might have helped them the only way possible.

But people usually march with pitchforks on organizations that helps some and kills others due to negligence. MT has been accorded an exception because of her power and fortune, no matter how much she claimed she was poor.

Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question.

The framing of this question is itself absurd. Everyone can agree on the fastest in a 100m race, at the end of the race. The objective is very clear and precise. 'Most admirable' is very subjective and not a very useful measure as an exercise in evaluating 3 different people in 3 different fields. Admiration like morality and a host of other things is time, place and context specific and so clearly will differ for different people at different times, at different places and under different conditions. Admiration is contingent on knowing someone. Most people have not directly come in contact with the above three individuals to evaluate them. They will have to rely on indirect sources of information and one's judgement varies or is colored by one's source of information. That is why, asking someone to rank their order of admiration (why rank?) will elicit all possible responses as is theoretically possible, from ranking 1,2,3 to equally admirable, to indifference to none are admirable to questions of who are these 3 people.

if you were one of those leprosy-ridden, TB ridden, cholera-ridden, cancer-ridden, poor abandoned by all often even family, in a country with no social safety nets, and she and her nuns gave you a cold drink of water and stroked your hand or head before you took your last breath, you wouldn't need her to have given you western analgesics to rise from your grave and challenge her naysaye

The problem I have with Mother Theresa is that she and the Little Sisters of the Poor did deathbed conversions, so yes, I agree that at best religiosity prevailed and departing souls were saved over present bodies.

In any case, Vinod picked out the only part worth thinking about.

Pinker's writing is pretty sloppy, viz., right off on the first page, thus--"no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”" Ridiculous! What does it signify if people won't say either part of that nonsensical statement out loud but act out something similar anyway, given that so many people here have turned a blind eye to the number of civilians killed in the name of the War on Terror, or the forces coined terms like collateral damage to cover situations where the kinds of people they don't care about are killed-- or, some would say, murdered. Jonathan Haidt's constructs, which Pinker cites, sound pretty damn silly too-- and who would bother to say anything about them at all unless they were being "polled" or "tested" ? Who cares if your experimental results database is gigantic from using the Web to pose nonsensical questions? And who can say what brain activity is being mapped on MRIs when one is confronted with bogus imaginary choices? I mean, it took Jane Goodall and a host of others decades to open up this type of thinker to the possibility that other apes engage in altruistic behavior and so now they do jive-ass experiments on rhesus monkeys. This is such a crude attempt to map brain function that he cites research that shows people with frontal lobe damage "lie, steal, ignore punishment, endanger their own children and can’t think through even the simplest moral dilemmas"- to which I say, what about people who do those things under advice from divorce counsel without suffering any brain damage at all?

Worst of all is the way Pinker's callow thinking is driven in a one sided way by current politics, "Consider this moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack, but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever?" Not even funny!

Why not look instead at how killing people abroad predisposes vets to murder people back home?
Now that might open up a bit of realistic thinking about whether morality is inborn or instinctive.

Pinker doesn't know what he is talking about. His examples are all wrong. Instead of joining the hype over Sr.Teresa he should have read up the more famous but superficial work of Hitchens or the less famous but the definitive account of MT's enterprise by Chatterjee "The Final Verdict". MT wasn't seeking 'salvation' through suffering for everyone. Just the ones she is supposed to have ministered to. She herself took advantage of the best medical facilities be it the Scripps at La Jolla or Bellvue and Woodlands in Calcutta, all for free. All those millions her order collected have be of little use to the few that her order has chosen to favor. MT's outfit does not use its 'ambulances' even to ferry the sick/dying/destitute. Given the reality of her inconsequential record of service to the dying/destitute/sick there is absolutely no doubt as to what she has achieved compared to Borlaug or Gates. Such comparisons aren't out of place, only we must take others who have achieved something of consequence. Now a more meaningful comparison would be to consider the works of Baba Amte (no hype, no hooplah) vs. Borlaug/Gates/Ambani/Tatas.

The problem I have with Mother Theresa is that she and the Little Sisters of the Poor did deathbed conversions,

So? A poor, suffering, destitute person says, "I accept Jesus Christ as my saviour" before dying or even otherwise not during their death. What's the prob?

Does it really matter at all?

In India we find that "morality" and "character" refers to sexuality mostly.

Not just in India.

True, the countries surrounding India tend to be like that as well.

I think that is very contentious. MT spent very little on the poor, most on the poor's "souls", aka the church. The funding MOC receives is (and was for the last 30 years) an order of magnitude more than what "huggies" or shankara eye foundation manages. But both have better medical institutions in place already. So while the following may be true (I am not saying it is, but even if it is), if huggies is St. 10%, MT is probably St. 99%:

You don't have to read about this---you just have to notice that the magnitude of her medical work is tiny compared with her donations. Leave the donations alone---the Nobel Prize awarded $800k in 79, which MT claimed would go in entirety to work for the poor (she didn't have to, but she did). Now this money goes a *really* long way in India. Why wasn't any improvement visible then? My guess is MT considered giving to the church as giving to the poor.

I do not deny the point that Teresa's philosophy of care was retrograde and appalling. I do not think though, that there is conclusive evidence that I have seen that she was filling the coffers of the Vatican (except in that she was a great saleswoman for Christian peity and mercy). The issue is that she spread her resources unforgivably thin, opening missions all over the world (not just in Calcutta, so can't compare just her expenditure there to what she brought in), willing to provide substandard care (involving cooling foreheads and muttering deathbed sacraments) to far more people rather than provide the quality care that the resources she had at her disposal would have allowed her to. Maybe you can argue that the piety and celebration of the lord brought her the same joy that agarbatti infused Benzes bring to some saffron-clad shamans, and it is just my opinion that one is worse than the other, which I am willing to accept.

Note that Al Qaeda does the same in several poverty struck regions, as do RSS and the Naxals.

Yes, but we are not discussing the quality of their charity work. Teresa didn't actively kill people like all these organizations you mention here, unless you want to claim that the Vatican agenda on contraception and abortion is morally equivalent (again those words! :) to the action of Al Qaeda. I beg to differ, but again, that is probably the kind of debate that is had over an evening of Johnny Walker and samosas :)

But people usually march with pitchforks on organizations that helps some and kills others due to negligence.

Yes, when these organizations are providing paid service, not charity to the extremely deprived.

MT has been accorded an exception because of her power and fortune, no matter how much she claimed she was poor.

I think MT has got far too much uncritical applause, I agree that there is a lot to criticize in the quality of care she provided, the agendas she pushed, and the people she consorted with, all I am saying is that I don't feel as negatively about her as when I first assimilated this information for the reason I mentioned in my earlier comment.

True, the countries surrounding India tend to be like that as well.

Where, by "surrounding", you mean the globe, I assume.

Ridiculous! What does it signify if people won't say either part of that nonsensical statement out loud but act out something similar anyway, given that so many people here have turned a blind eye to the number of civilians killed in the name of the War on Terror, or the forces coined terms like collateral damage to cover situations where the kinds of people they don't care about are killed-- or, some would say, murdered. Jonathan Haidt's constructs, which Pinker cites, sound pretty damn silly too-- and who would bother to say anything about them at all unless they were being "polled" or "tested" ?

Collateral damage is different than gratuitous killing, which is quite clearly the context in which Pinker makes the original statement. In fact, the questions about collateral damaged map pretty accurately to the trolley game conundrums.

True, the countries surrounding India tend to be like that as well.

Where, by "surrounding", you mean the globe, I assume.

Nope, not at all. There are plenty of places around the globe where concepts of morality and character are not centered around sexuality but rather more around honesty, compassion, and other virtues.

This is such a crude attempt to map brain function that he cites research that shows people with frontal lobe damage "lie, steal, ignore punishment, endanger their own children and can’t think through even the simplest moral dilemmas"- to which I say, what about people who do those things under advice from divorce counsel without suffering any brain damage at all?

Worst of all is the way Pinker's callow thinking is driven in a one sided way by current politics, "Consider this moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack, but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever?" Not even funny!

Well, the current politics example drives home exactly this point that different people place different aspects of morality over others, and I don't see why your example that some people rate self-interest over other behaviors in some circumstances (and again, a vast majority of people might consider these behaviors "immoral", depending on whatever you are alluding to) makes the frontal lobe damage research invalid.

Nope, not at all. There are plenty of places around the globe where concepts of morality and character are not centered around sexuality but rather more around honesty, compassion, and other virtues.

Okay.

Mother Teresa did deathbed conversions of those whom she took under her care. As someone pointed out, it's no big deal if a dying person professes to take Jesus (or any other person /deity) into his/her life before departing this world. But now we know that MT herself had not quite taken Jesus into her own life. Yet she acted as the vicar on behalf of something/ someone she didn't believe in. What should we infer from that?

The question of morality, whether it is the intention or the consequence of an altruistic act that matters, is something Pinker has asked. He makes it clear that for altruism to be "good" it doesn't have to be an act of excruciating self abnegation or sacrifice on the part of the giver. Doing good while making good too qualifies as effective altruism.

In MT's case (from what I have learnt over the years and on this thread) she seems to have been lacking both in "intention" and "consequence." It is kind of sad because I don't believe she began by wishing to deceive. She may have been coerced to act on behalf of those who saw her as the perfect person in a perfect place to carry on their agenda, perhaps against her own sincere wishes. Yet her halo as the ultimate saintly do-gooder will be hard to tarnish precisely because of the public perception of her "holiness" and her personal life style of apparent deprivation. Somehow we cannot shake off the notion of co-suffering lending validation to the alleviation of suffering. That morality need not be an emotional, impulsive act but can be a well thought out and carefully planned choice, is a lesson that is still far into the future for most people.

So, if MT wasn't acting on some fuzzy spiritual/ religious notion of morality but saw her "missionary" work on behalf of the wretched more as a stoic duty, does that then paradoxically make her a "secular" moralist, however ineffectual she may have been?

There is no problem with MT or someone like her taking the best possible medical care for her health, as it became available to her. If the physician is sick, who will heal the rest of us? Not that she was a physician, but the MORAL of that statement is that powerful personalities who are helping others, they need to be kept strong and fit so that their work can go on and more people can be helped. She may not have done as much as the media and Catholic Church said she did, but she did way more than I ever did for the sick and poor, so I will respect her for that.

"Pinker's writing is pretty sloppy"

".....sound pretty damn silly too..."

"Worst of all is the way Pinker's callow thinking"

"Pinker doesn't know what he is talking about. His examples are all wrong."

Are these people aware that Pinker is a proven intellectual and an acclaimed professor (who btw, in that essay was talking well within his realm of expertise)? You guys should learn to pause for a moment to consider the possibility that you did't grasp the issue very well, before passing judgement on an expert and making fools of yourselves?

(If you guys were like.... under 15, etc. then worry not - this trait will be learnt over time... on the contrary, if you are well into your 20s and still haven't realized this, I offer my sincere condolences for your perpetually hot headed predicaments)

39 · Ruchira said

Yet her halo as the ultimate saintly do-gooder will be hard to tarnish precisely because of the public perception of her "holiness" and her personal life style of apparent deprivation.

The halo ain't there. That's the problem. It was a life of comfort for herself and a life of deprivation for the ones her mission chose to take care of. Chatterjee's Final Verdict rips off the facade of the MT mission leaving nothing to appreciate. Take even the homes for the destitute that supposedly admitted all and sundry.

The Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta possess a small fleet of 'ambulances', many of them donated by businesses and individuals. These vehicles are painted to appear as ambulances and are fitted with red beacons; they are exempt from traffic regulations. But their main or sole function is to provide a taxi service for the nuns. In my time, I have never seen an 'ambulance' carry a patient or a destitute. Indeed, most of them do not have the provision to carry a stretcher, for the rails on the floor have been removed. The seats on the sides have been replaced by patterned sofas for the nuns to sit on. On 21 August 1996, I saw an extraordinary sight, even by the standards of the Missionaries of Charity - here was an ambulance, donated by Federal Express (India), filled with chickens; they were being brought to Mother House for the nuns' annual feast the following day! I have a photograph of this bizarre spectacle. Vegetarians amongst the readers will be happy to know that the chickens had an unexpected extension of their lives, as the feast was cancelled due to Mother taking seriously ill.

On 21 August 1996, I saw an extraordinary sight, even by the standards of the Missionaries of Charity - here was an ambulance, donated by Federal Express (India), filled with chickens; they were being brought to Mother House for the nuns' annual feast the following day! I have a photograph of this bizarre spectacle. Vegetarians amongst the readers will be happy to know that the chickens had an unexpected extension of their lives, as the feast was cancelled due to Mother taking seriously ill.

I remember hearing some Hare Krishnas criticise MT for feeding chicken and fish to her patients, whom they assumed were vegetarians before that. The Hare Krishnas thought vegetarianism was prevelent in West Bengal. I explained that most Bengalis are non-veggies and fish is a staple diet of the region. They were shocked to hear that.

cool

And I thought I was alone in my distate for MT - Has anyone read a psychological profile of the late MT, who was not very attractive physically and did she have scoliosis? I suspect a bitter young lady who turned away from regular society because she did not fit in? Tante B

And I thought I was alone in my distate for MT - Has anyone read a psychological profile of the late MT, who was not very attractive physically and did she have scoliosis? I suspect a bitter young lady who turned away from regular society because she did not fit in? Tante B

What about the psychological profile of pretty, popular girls who fit in but grow up to do nothing else with their lives but continue to look pretty and be popular in small circles that value prettiness in females?

My gut tells me MT has a more meaningful psychological profile.

>

I think the world needs more of those like MT that "did not fin in".

Has anyone read a psychological profile of the late MT, who was not very attractive physically and did she have scoliosis? I suspect a bitter young lady who turned away from regular society because she did not fit in?

I think the world needs more of those like MT that "did not fin in".

43 · Characterless Morality said

The Hare Krishnas thought vegetarianism was prevelent in West Bengal. I explained that most Bengalis are non-veggies and fish is a staple diet of the region. They were shocked to hear that.

The Iskcon folks are a little woozy on their Bengali heritage. The Ramakrishna Mission, which does some really good work in Calcutta, like running a hospital, training nurses etc., unlike the hyped up nonentities of the MT mission, has swamis who aren't necessarily vegetarian. But Iskcon again does some very good work. The Akshayapatra Foundation now distributes over 800,000 free meals a day in India MT even with all her hype never claimed to serve more than 5,000 meals a day (while she actually served no more than 50-75 a day according to Dr. Aroup Chatterjee).

No doubt Gates & Borlaug have had a more significant impact on the material well being of India's poor. But I think MT and religious charities have a different constituency, i.e. discarded terminally ill people beyond the reach of productivity enhancing tools. As a Hindu I'm a bit troubled by the concept of "saving souls", but I think the religious mandate to love unconditionally gets people to do emotionally exhausting work that would be left undone otherwise

50 · louiecypher said

But I think MT and religious charities have a different constituency, i.e. discarded terminally ill people beyond the reach of productivity enhancing tools.

Unfortunately MT and her mission have done nothing for this constituency. Zilch. Zip.

I am grateful that there are anonymous individuals in the world who do what they can every day to make our lives a little better.

Unfortunately MT and her mission have done nothing for this constituency. Zilch. Zip.

OK, so then what exactly did MT do, if anything? Surely she did not just sit idle in Kolkata?

One criticism lodged against her is that she was bad for India's image. Excuse me? How was MT bad for India's image?

she was bad for India's image

I do not see this criticism of MT in this discussion.

I think the benchmark that MT (maybe Christianity in general) works towards is the "saving of souls". For the life of me I do not know what this means, but have heard it often enough. The nature of "sos" implies a one-on-one interaction. One could compare the benchmarks of Gates and Borlaug but MT's may not be comparable. Is this what razib was implying?

Saving souls means that without accepting Jesus Christ as one's "personal saviour" that soul will go to Hell and burn forever, regardless of how good they may be as an individual.

It's not my belief system at all, however, if Christians want hungry, poor or uneducated people to convert to that belief in exchange for getting fed, not starving to death, and getting an education, well, who cares? These people are being materially benefitted in ways they may not otherwise be, they recite some words of acceptance of a new belief system, read the bible and get indoctrinated into Christian dogma. A small price to pay when you are otherwise poor and hungry. What difference does it make what they get converted to or indoctrinated in, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, or themselves?

if Christians want hungry, poor or uneducated people to convert to that belief in exchange for getting fed, not starving to death, and getting an education, well, who cares? These people are being materially benefitted in ways they may not otherwise be, they recite some words of acceptance of a new belief system, read the bible and get indoctrinated into Christian dogma. A small price to pay when you are otherwise poor and hungry.

MT's benchmark was never to educate, heal or alleviate poverty. These are benchmarks for the Gates foundation. All MT wanted to do was "sos" before the person died.

Worst of all is the way Pinker's callow thinking is driven in a one sided way by current politics, "Consider this moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack, but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever?" Not even funny!

For those of you who read the entire article, you'll notice that this is a great example illustrating the mentality of "taboo". I thought the existence of "a conviction that some thoughts are sinful to think" was kind of far-fetched at first but I guess not. This is a prime example where "the subjects not only disagreed but felt personally insulted and were outraged that anyone would raise the question."

But now we know that MT herself had not quite taken Jesus into her own life. Yet she acted as the vicar on behalf of something/ someone she didn't believe in. What should we infer from that?

I found this somewhat amusing.. "taking Jesus into own's life" is not quite like taking a pill..

I would recco you actually read about other saints' lives - and you will find that the majority of these saints have struggled deeply with their faith some point in their lives - ie: even Jesus did at the garden. So the "revelation" of her struggling is hardly surprising. It is the daily act to go on amidst doubt and negativity that is inspiring.

So what you could infer is that there is hope.

And that is exactly what modern India is all about right now - hope for a better tomorrow.

To that end, I sincerely hope that are still people in this world who are willing to make the sacrifice for those in need and be role models for the rest of us cynics out there.

In contrast to Mother Teresa, both Borlaug and Gates are improving the world through a consequence of their actions which may have been directed elsewhere. As a deep consequentialist myself, it’s probably no surprise that I’d put ‘em quite a few notches above Mother Teresa. “Momma T” was a great person, no doubt - practically a saint, no less - BUT, I tend to value an idea and action by it’s systemic, scalable, real world consequences rather than its moral overtones.

As a lapsed Catholic, it is no surprise Vinod would say that.. but I would propose that MT was improving the world through a consequence of her actions - however is not economic consequences as Gates or Borlaug suggest, but spiritual consequences as she deeply believed. The action where one shares with those who are in need; gives food to those who are poor; gives up what one has for the sake of others. It is an economic response to a spiritual reality that could be systemic, scalable with real world consequences if people were brave enough to step up.

As a lapsed Catholic, it is no surprise Vinod would say that

Cut it out.
There is no measurable consequence of MT's actions.
Wait, maybe there is. Zero. Nothing changed for the person: they died after drinking the water she provided.

As a lapsed Catholic, it is no surprise Vinod would say that..

BUT, this is a SPECTACULARLY solid example of this type of shoddiness & one I haven't seen before. So congrats, Neel, for being up there with the worst of them.

SM Intern - please do NOT delete Neel's comment; even though he and the guy commenting under the handle AudacityOfHope suspiciously share the same IP address. I'm getting a good chuckle out of it.

As a lapsed Catholic, it is no surprise Vinod would say that..

One of the most intellectually sloppy ways to respond to an argument is imply dubious Motives of the other side...

even though he and the guy commenting under the handle AudacityOfHope suspiciously share the same IP address.

I don't know about intellectually sloppy, but it is certainly grammatically sloppy. I had to read the comment over multiple times to realize that the participial phrase "as a lapsed catholic" was intended to describe Vinod, not the commenter himself. Although if he's picking arbitrary handles while being all churchy, shouldn't he have used "Kneel" instead?

SM Intern - please do NOT delete Neel's comment;

Good on you for turning the other cheek, Vinod.

less famous but the definitive account of MT's enterprise by Chatterjee "The Final Verdict".

First three chapters of the book are online. [link]

AudacityofHope:

So the "revelation" of her struggling is hardly surprising. It is the daily act to go on amidst doubt and negativity that is inspiring.

You are actually condemning MT more than I intended, my skepticism notwithstanding. I was ready to give her the benefit of the doubt that she went about her charity and suffering "despite" her doubts (non-belief, really, as we have found out). A secular moralist, I suggested. But you say it was all for her own "struggle" and "doubt" that she soldiered on. That doesn't sound like altruism to me - neither of intent nor consequence. Comes awfully close to self serving sanctimoniousness or hypocrisy. Is that what you meant?

Pinker's article in my opinion, is excellent and his logic sound, whether or not you find all his "scientific" claims compelling. This is exactly the kind of debate we need in the public square regarding morality, altruism and ethics. For too long the default position has been to give religion the credit for our humane predilections because we are too lazy to examine our own minds and motivations.

About 13 years ago, the Indian students association at Texas A&M University had organized a lecture by Dr. Borlaug, (He used to teach there, maybe still does?). Being one of of the only 2 Nobel Laurates at that university, we had anticipated a huge crowd, and had reserved a large lecture hall.

The event had been well publicized, and Dr. Borlaug had come well prepared. Unfortunately, only about 25 people showed up. Mostly Desi grad students, a couple of ABCDs, and a handful of PhDs types from the Econ. dept.

The lecture went great - what was sad was that in a university of 40,000 full time students, (and 500+ Indian students - FOB+ABCD), the turnout was so shabby.

The silver lining was that many of us got to interact one-on-one with Dr. Borlaug.

Are these people aware that Pinker is a proven intellectual

What manner of being is a "proven intellectual"? One who has been shown to think?

What manner of being is a "proven intellectual"? One who has been shown to think?

"proven intellectual" = being capable of thinking at a much deeper level than most others.

Like evidenced here

You are probably confusing a serious academic researcher for a simple journalist or a writer.