23

23. The Sins of Mother Theresa
March 11, 1998

In a message dated March 11, 1998, Bsmith5044 writes:

"This Mother Theresa doesn't come across as all that great in this article. I urge anyone interested to pick up a copy of the current Free Inquiry and have a look for himself."

Excellent post. This is one that all should read very carefully. Especially those who want to think of Mother Theresa as such an angel. Again, even in it modern examples, religion turns out to be nothing but a farce.

DavidTietz wrote:

Quoting Tindrbox: "Although others may not value WWCKFS's wife, the fact is he does, and that is what makes this a moral act.

"Rational morality consists of pursuing and defending values, not surrendering them."

DavidTietz responds: "Hmmmm… interesting system of morality. I value my teddy bear. I'd kill to protect it from a rhino, I'd even 'protect' it from a human."

If you value your 'teddy bear' more than you value the lives of others, this is your choice, but it could hardly be considered rational. Again, here is an example of the mystic way of thinking: since the mystic's version of morality (the morality of sacrifice) is laden with irrationalism and leaps of whim, he automatically assumes that all systems of morality will also likewise be whim-based and irrational. That is not the case with rational self-interest. Keyword: rational.

A rational man will recognize the fact that a 'teddy bear' is both inanimate and replaceable as a value; human life is not (I really don’t think I need to explain this, but I have heard crazier things, such as poisoned kool-aid on a hot summer afternoon in French Guyana…).

Quoting Tindrbox: "I agree 100% with this statement. In fact, I applaud it! Bill Gates, and people like him, produce values, and are vilified for it.

"Mother Theresa and her ilk do not produce values, but re-distribute them, and are glorified for it."

DavidTietz responds: "You are confusing moral values with valuable things."

And you will explain the difference? Or, are you merely going to leave it at that?

There is a tendency among people today to prefer vague orbits of ambiguity and confusion when speaking about morality, and DavidTietz's response above is an example of this. One such tendency is the attempt to divorce the concept morality from the problem of human survival. The rhetoric one hears in such cases is the inference that moral values lie hidden in some supernatural dimension or somehow unaffected by or inapplicable to the tangible, the material, or the actual world around us. The results are devastating (cf. the post that Bsmith contributed in regard to Mother Theresa's life and way).

Nothing could be further from the truth. All values, both in matter and in spirit, belong to the discussion of morality. The inference above that there is a 'difference' between 'moral values' and 'valuable things' misses the point entirely: any assessment of the value of something, whether tangible, material or spiritual, requires values judgments. This judgment is the product and task of a moral system.

If one values his 'teddy bear' over his wife, for example, this values judgment reveals one kind of man; if one values his wife over his 'teddy bear', this reveals another kind of man, one that I would judge as morally superior to the former. And the judgment that recognizes the value of the latter man (who values his wife over his 'teddy bear') reveals one kind of man, while the judgment that esteems the man who values his 'teddy bear' over his wife as more valuable reveals yet another kind of man, morally speaking.

Stay tuned, I have much more to say about this.

Tindrbox

_________________________________

[Top]

[Back to the Tindrbox Files]

[Back to ATOA Grand Central]