Mother Theresa, Goodness vs. Freewill

[wussup]

I have long wondered at the motivation of Mother Theresa. Having said that, I make no judgment of her per se, but the generation of the question of why. Why did Mother Theresa do the humanitarian works? More importantly, what was the moral character of the work itself?

Clearly, on the outside looking in, her work was good. Your Catholics, you can fill in the gap. The entire world viewed her as a saint. The question from a faith-based view is, was her actions morally good? I see four main moral motivators varying in degrees of ‘goodness’.

A- The act was done because the being wanted to do so in spite of the nature of the beings attributes free of compulsion from within and with-out.
B- The act was done because the being was compelled to do so from the nature of the beings attributes.
C- The act was done because the being was compelled to do so by an outside influence (be it a Supreme Being, societal pressures, physical or emotional coersion

I think the latter can be further subdivided into types:

c1- a desire for reward
c2- fear of punishment
c3- obedience to a higher moral authority​

Clearly, any action performed will have a mix of the motivators, however does it not make sense that a moral action of A is the highest moral good? For example, God created mankind because he wanted to. He was not compelled to by His nature, but rather as an expression of perfect free will.

A-Mother Theresa could have saw the misery around her in Calcutta, and wanted to serve.
B-She could have done so because it was in her nature to serve, and her action was not wholly of her own free will. Think motherly instinct. (though that is not the right word either).
C-She could have felt it a commandment. (While this appears to be the case from her statement, “I was to leave the convent and help the poor while living among them. It was an order. To fail would have been to break the faith”, , Joan Graff Clucas, Mother Teresa, I believe she did so mostly free of constraint.
)

This question was brought to my mind when I stumbled across notes on Kierkegard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he suggests the highest moral action is which the active faith is internalized to the point that ‘objective uncertainty’ is the prime directive.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a question of Mother Theresa, but rather an application of general interest in ethics. Personally, I believe Mother Theresa did her works because she wanted to. She weighed the options of her life, so there was a need, decided of her own free will she would do this. She therefore epitomized virtue.

 

[Eucharisted]

The motivation of those who do works of mercy like Mother Theresa is love, for the fruits of love are joy, mercy, and peace. The person who is in love with another - as a lord loves his lady - is happy to be in their presence, is merciful to them, and finds peace in serving and helping them. The proud cannot understand what love means, but the humble do.

 

[wussup]

The motivation of those who do works of mercy like Mother Theresa is love, for the fruits of love are joy, mercy, and peace. The person who is in love with another - as a lord loves his lady - is happy to be in their presence, is merciful to them, and finds peace in serving and helping them. The proud cannot understand what love means, but the humble do.

Yes. Sure. So the question is how much freewill is involved with such a decision. For those who have been following the PSR, TCA, threads, etc., this question is really about causation. As you pointed out Eucharisted, do such as Mother Theresa do so out of an expression of free will, the ultimate form to give service to another without compulsion of any type, including her own intrinsic goodness, or as I quoted you in the highlighted, as a function of the ‘fruits of love’? Mother Theresa’s question is a type of the motivation of God question. According to Aquinas, all humans reactions are causality functions. According to Aquinas, ‘something’ besides an ultimate expression of free will (because according to Aquinas, only God has Maximal Free Will) ‘caused’ Mother Theresa to do what she did.

My argument is similar to Kierkegard’s, that is Mother Theresa was endowed of God to be a self-existent Free Will. She can and did develop a ‘Maximal Free Will’ and did her deeds because she choose to in the highest manner. She did not do this out of ‘love of God’ or Love of mankind’, she choose to help because she simply wanted to. Love, for her is an attribute separate from her free-will. I submit she did not do this out of love (because that would have been a link in a causality chain) but because she looked at a situation and choose to do something about it.

 

[Eucharisted]

I love quoting this line from Billy Madison whenever people make comments that don’t make sense:

Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The reason your comment is nonsensical is because you are attempting to isolate free-will. You cannot isolate free-will because every choice you make - good or bad - is your free-will. You chose to be a Mormon - that is your free-will. I chose to be Catholic - that is my free-will. Freedom of the will is the freedom to act on one’s will for good or evil; it is not a choice in itself, where you choose a color or a game, but rather, it is a moral choice. Love is the highest form of free-will, as well as the motive of every moral choice. Love is to act on one’s will for good for another - that is why those who act mercifully act out of love. But not everyone has “true” love, some have false loves: for example, a love of money (the sin of greed) or a love of self above all things (the sin of pride). Sin is the opposite of love, in that it is to act one’s will for the good of oneself above all things. Dose this sound similar to pride? It should, because pride is the specific cause of all sins. Disobedience, in so far as every evil action is a rebellion against God’s Law, is the general cause of all sins, because God is Goodness Itself and evil is against goodness.

 

[wussup]

I love quoting this line from Billy Madison whenever people make comments that don’t make sense:

hmmm, Billy Madison huh? I guess I should feel crushed… I think I will live through the criticism though…

The reason your comment is nonsensical is because you are attempting to isolate free-will. You cannot isolate free-will because every choice you make - good or bad - is your free-will. You chose to be a Mormon - that is your free-will. I chose to be Catholic - that is my free-will.

Let’s look at your response in detail. Yes, your conclusion of my statement is correct. However, I am not alone in determining the primacy of Free Will over all. Aquinas says in Question 20, article 1, “We must needs assert that in God there is love: because love is the first movement of the will and of every appetitive faculty” and again, “Hence love is naturally the first act of the will and appetite”. Thomas clearly illustrates the doctrine of God as First Cause in his writing. He goes so far as to explain in great detail that God’s Love is even a causative result of His Will, albeit Love is the first of all of God’s exercise of His will. Thomas seems to agree with me.

I am not sure what being Mormon has to do with the conversation.

Freedom of the will is the freedom to act on one’s will for good or evil; it is not a choice in itself, where you choose a color or a game, but rather, it is a moral choice. Love is the highest form of free-will, as well as the motive of every moral choice. Love is to act on one’s will for good for another - that is why those who act mercifully act out of love. But not everyone has “true” love, some have false loves: for example, a love of money (the sin of greed) or a love of self above all things (the sin of pride). Sin is the opposite of love, in that it is to act one’s will for the good of oneself above all things. Does this sound similar to pride? It should, because pride is the specific cause of all sins. Disobedience, in so far as every evil action is a rebellion against God’s Law, is the general cause of all sins, because God is Goodness Itself and evil is against goodness.

You have clearly illustrated my point. The line between an exercise of moral Free Will, the determination between Good and Evil, is a very distinct fine line, yet a line there is. However, there is also an element of Divine Control of our will, denying us the ‘free’ part, according to Thomas, “God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man” (Prima Secundae Partis, question 6, article 4).

Back to the Mother Theresa-type, it appears to me that she was not necessarily acting on her own Free Will. This does not deny her the grace of God, nor does it lessen the act.