Aiding others does more harm than good

Thursday, October 22, 1998

Aiding others does more harm than good

ALTRUISM: Service to destitute engenders dependence, robs people
of control over own lives

Sacrificing yourself for others: this is generally the principle
of moral goodness followed in our society. We are constantly told
how doing anything for the self is wrong, and that all of our
actions must be directed towards a greater good. This principle has
been followed for thousands of years without much dissent.

People have simply refused to accept that altruism accomplishes
little good and can cause more suffering that it hoped to
alleviate. There are a great number of people in the world who live
their lives around the principles of altruism. Perhaps the figure
that is most synonymous with this practice is Mother Teresa of
Calcutta.

Mother Teresa is held by many as the ideal figure in our society
to be revered and worshiped. She is used as a standard of goodness
and virtue with all acts of altruism being compared to hers. Her
life is also an example of how altruism fails.

Mother Teresa spent her life in servitude to the destitute of
Calcutta, India. People are in such awe over how her entire life
went to this service and how she sacrificed her life for those in
need. But one must stop to think about her motives. Most
importantly, she has said that God appeared to her and ordered her
to go to Calcutta and service the poor.

Ordered her to go.

If such is the case, then Mother Teresa really made no
sacrifice. She was simply following orders from her boss.

What is then the difference between her and any of us that work
for a living? All of us follow orders from our bosses. Why are
working people not then commended for their actions?

Another important point to bring up is the end result of her
actions. She went to Calcutta in order to serve the poor. And after
she had served for over 30 years, poverty had been completely
alleviated in India with all people joyously singing in the streets
about their newfound wealth and happiness, right? Wrong. As anyone
can plainly see, the condition of the city is little better than
what existed before Mother Teresa arrived. In fact, it may even be
worse. But how could this be? After all, have we not been hearing
tales of how Mother Teresa has accomplished so much? The truth is,
Mother Teresa did little to help the poor; she just made them
dependent on her. Instead of addressing the relevant problems of
India or helping people forge their own lives, she basically
encouraged people not to do anything for themselves and rather to
rely on her for their sustenance. What are these people supposed to
do now after Mother Teresa has passed on?

The whole problem with Mother Teresa and all those who mimic her
actions is their continued devotion to the sin of altruism. Many
fail to grasp that altruism benefits no one and usually causes more
damage than it ever hopes to solve.

Remember, nearly every war and every atrocity committed in the
history of civilization has been committed on some sort of
altruistic motive. Self-interest has never been a cause for war. It
is in no one’s interest to die.

It is only when people are brainwashed into thinking that they
have to live for some non-existent greater good that they are made
to suffer.

What do Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic and
Mother Teresa have in common? They all preached self-sacrifice.
Take, for example, Hitler’s statement from "Mein Kampf": "In (the
Aryan), the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest
form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of
the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." All
of these historical figures claimed that a greater good needs to be
served.

One of the greatest problems associated with altruism is the
good intentions clause. People somehow think they are absolved of
any responsibility for their actions as long as they have good
intentions. Mother Teresa was an example of this. This applies in
relation to what she actually accomplished during her time in
Calcutta.

She commonly would relate figures for how many people she had
saved from the streets. One day it would be 9,000 people, the next
4,000 and the next day 7,000.

All of these figures, however, are prevarications. The real
figure is closer to about 300 per day. (These numbers are from a
deposition given by Aroup Chaterjee, which is posted in his website
at http://www.internet-gp.com/teresa/toppage2.htm). Mother Teresa
was known to have said, "That what matters is not how much work is
accomplished but how much love is put into the work."(Jose Luis
Gonzalez-Balado, "Loving Jesus, Mother Teresa" London: Fount, 1991,
p. 156)

Here the good intentions clause is invoked. Supposedly, it does
not matter what she did because she had good intentions.

Overall, the most annoying thing about Mother Teresa was her
continued devotion to the lives of others. In this, she set an
example that self-sacrifice is a noble ideal that should be
practiced by all. Her ideal was that you must not live for yourself
and must rather dedicate your entire existence to anyone other than
yourself.

This is the most morally bankrupt ideal anyone could follow.
Hear me now and believe me later: your life is your own. No one
else is entitled to it. Working for others accomplishes nothing.
Why would anyone ever want to exert effort if someone else will do
it for them?

Think about this: was the wheel invented for the good of others?
No. Was the car invented for the good of others? No. Many great
achievements in history were accomplished out of someone’s self
interest.

Those who preach self-sacrifice never give reasons as to why one
must work for others. It is taken as axiomatic that you are not
entitled to your own life.

Think of all the people in history who have preached sacrifice
to some greater good: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot,
Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, Tomás de Torquemada, etc.
Now look at what occurred in each of those countries: mass murder
and human misery, all in the name of a greater good. These leaders,
as well as numerous others in history, have preached the idea that
people cannot live for themselves. When has a leader ever said that
you must forgo your money and your rights for your own good?

Once the idea is accepted that one must deny the self, all
freedom is lost. The aura of guilt is held over one’s head,
creating a moral ground for disparaging one’s fundamental
rights.

The only way for true freedom and prosperity to emerge is if
people are allowed to pursue their own rational self-interest
without any interference from the government or any other outside
entity. It is only when human beings are allowed to pursue their
own self-interest that they are able to utilize their full
potential. Who would you rather have working on you: a doctor who
has a vested interest in a successful operation, or someone who
claims to have good intentions? "I’m sorry I shredded your
testicles, but hey, I had good intentions."

Altruism merely fosters mediocrity. Such is the case with those
who practice altruism, Mother Teresa included.

I hope this article has been enlightening for you.

If not, don’t blame me, I had good intentions.Matthew Gever

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]