Is Bill Gates More Moral Than Mother Teresa?
In a very long piece (7823 words) in the New York Times Magazine this week, Steven Pinker makes the case that Bill Gates might be more moral than Mother Teresa–because he’s using his fortune to deal with problems like malaria in developing countries.
Well, I’m not sure I’m ready to agree. But it certainly is nice to see moral issues getting lead-story placement in the Times Magazine.
It’s also fascinating to see how the author, a Harvard professor, manages to explore moral questions in some depth, and yet manages at the same time to keep his own viewpoints remarkably hidden. We don’t know if he’s liberal or conservative, and we don’t even know if he thinks Gates or Teresa would win the morality contest.
Another of his examples is how the difference between Islamic Sudan and the secular West had near-disastrous consequences for a well-meaning schoolteacher.
And because we don’t know his position, it’s easier to accept his premise that morality can create a common ground between Left and Right, or between people of widely disparate cultures.
An example of the former:
But in any conflict in which a meeting of the minds is not completely hopeless, a recognition that the other guy is acting from moral rather than venal reasons can be a first patch of common ground. One side can acknowledge the other’s concern for community or stability or fairness or dignity, even while arguing that some other value should trump it in that instance. With affirmative action, for example, the opponents can be seen as arguing from a sense of fairness, not racism, and the defenders can be seen as acting from a concern with community, not bureaucratic power. Liberals can ratify conservatives’ concern with families while noting that gay marriage is perfectly consistent with that concern.
This insight, about 90% through the article, is simply brilliant. I’ve seen it in action many times, but never so clearly expressed, except perhaps by legendary community organizer Saul Alinsky. It’s a principle that every agent of social change should internalize.
I don’t know whether I would agree that Bill Gates is more moral than Mother Teresa, but one thing to consider about those who are in helping positions is the long term efficacy of their help. Does their “help” address the root cause of the problem? Or, does it just add to it? Mother Teresa, as a Catholic, was strongly opposed to birth control. The endless and growing supply of unwanted children she cared for might not have remained so endless had her compassion included reasoning about the root cause of the problem. Do we send a bag of rice to the starving while we ignore the infrastructure that creates and allows people to starve? Or do we also work on fixing the root cause of the problem, not just the symptom?
I don’t know whether I would agree that Bill Gates is more moral than Mother Teresa, but one thing to consider about those who are in helping positions is the long term efficacy of their help. Does their “help” address the root cause of the problem? Or, does it just add to it? Mother Teresa, as a Catholic, was strongly opposed to birth control. The endless and growing supply of unwanted children she cared for might not have remained so endless had her compassion included reasoning about the root cause of the problem. Do we send a bag of rice to the starving while we ignore the infrastructure that creates and allows people to starve? Or do we also work on fixing the root cause of the problem, not just the symptom?
I don’t know whether I would agree that Bill Gates is more moral than Mother Teresa, but one thing to consider about those who are in helping positions is the long term efficacy of their help. Does their “help” address the root cause of the problem? Or, does it just add to it? Mother Teresa, as a Catholic, was strongly opposed to birth control. The endless and growing supply of unwanted children she cared for might not have remained so endless had her compassion included reasoning about the root cause of the problem. Do we send a bag of rice to the starving while we ignore the infrastructure that creates and allows people to starve? Or do we also work on fixing the root cause of the problem, not just the symptom?
I don’t know whether I would agree that Bill Gates is more moral than Mother Teresa, but one thing to consider about those who are in helping positions is the long term efficacy of their help. Does their “help” address the root cause of the problem? Or, does it just add to it? Mother Teresa, as a Catholic, was strongly opposed to birth control. The endless and growing supply of unwanted children she cared for might not have remained so endless had her compassion included reasoning about the root cause of the problem. Do we send a bag of rice to the starving while we ignore the infrastructure that creates and allows people to starve? Or do we also work on fixing the root cause of the problem, not just the symptom?
Jessie…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…
[…] = “34d024″; var mooter_wrapper_url=””; var run_method = “onload”; var mooter_target = “0”; Is Bill Gates More Moral Than Mother Teresa? saved by 14 others magicman620 bookmarked on 01/15/08 | […]
[…] Is Bill Gates More Moral Than Mother Teresa? In a very long piece (7823 words) in the New York Times Magazine this week, Steven Pinker makes the case that Bill Gates might be more moral than Mother Teresa–because he’s using his fortune to deal with problems like malaria in … […]