Some post-NKF saga thoughts.
a short reflection of the recent NKF saga that rocked the front pages of the local papers...
----------------
IT is no exaggeration to say that the recent National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga has greatly tarnished the image of many charitable organizations here.
But it has also brought to light one fundamental flaw that plagues much of our modern society.
That good ends can sufficiently justify bad means.
What do I mean?
Living in a country that is generally governed on capitalistic principles – of which the measurement of success is often that of achieving the bottom-line – it is easy to justify our actions by citing the goals that have been attained.
As such, surely the thousands who have benefited from NKF’s health programmes can justify the questionable means that have been employed.
As what its former CEO T.T. Durai may have argued: For what can be more noble – and important – than saving a human life?
Such an argument can be highly persuasive – given the nature of the work – but in my opinion, is highly erroneous.
This is because its core value - that of pragmatism, or utilitarianism – is ultimately one without any sensible appeal to morality.
In other words – as what Mr Calvin Choo Kahwei wrote - everything is OK as long as you can raise or make more money, or do not get caught. (“Were not questionable means employed”; ST, July 20)
Today, I sense a similar – and even hypocritical – situation at work here.
In the quest for material success, many individuals chose to ignore their moral compass and instead adopt a “survival of the fittest” work ethos, without any concern for what is right – or wrong.
And yet, many of these individuals – when their pockets are hurt – ironically condemn the NKF’s actions, without realizing that these actions were only the logical conclusion of the pervasive forces of pragmatism that is at work here.
In this instance, the NKF has been made a public scapegoat – and rightfully so. But I fear that unless we start to examine our ethical responsibilities, we will be in peril of going down the slippery slope without even knowing so.
I am not saying that we should discard rational principles and targets in exchange for altruistic sentimentalism, but rather, to advocate the fact that our good deeds must be backed by a clean conscience.
Only then, will charity be true charity. Let’s hope we have learnt our lesson well.
----------------
IT is no exaggeration to say that the recent National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga has greatly tarnished the image of many charitable organizations here.
But it has also brought to light one fundamental flaw that plagues much of our modern society.
That good ends can sufficiently justify bad means.
What do I mean?
Living in a country that is generally governed on capitalistic principles – of which the measurement of success is often that of achieving the bottom-line – it is easy to justify our actions by citing the goals that have been attained.
As such, surely the thousands who have benefited from NKF’s health programmes can justify the questionable means that have been employed.
As what its former CEO T.T. Durai may have argued: For what can be more noble – and important – than saving a human life?
Such an argument can be highly persuasive – given the nature of the work – but in my opinion, is highly erroneous.
This is because its core value - that of pragmatism, or utilitarianism – is ultimately one without any sensible appeal to morality.
In other words – as what Mr Calvin Choo Kahwei wrote - everything is OK as long as you can raise or make more money, or do not get caught. (“Were not questionable means employed”; ST, July 20)
Today, I sense a similar – and even hypocritical – situation at work here.
In the quest for material success, many individuals chose to ignore their moral compass and instead adopt a “survival of the fittest” work ethos, without any concern for what is right – or wrong.
And yet, many of these individuals – when their pockets are hurt – ironically condemn the NKF’s actions, without realizing that these actions were only the logical conclusion of the pervasive forces of pragmatism that is at work here.
In this instance, the NKF has been made a public scapegoat – and rightfully so. But I fear that unless we start to examine our ethical responsibilities, we will be in peril of going down the slippery slope without even knowing so.
I am not saying that we should discard rational principles and targets in exchange for altruistic sentimentalism, but rather, to advocate the fact that our good deeds must be backed by a clean conscience.
Only then, will charity be true charity. Let’s hope we have learnt our lesson well.
posted by Benjamin Ho at
9:34 AM
2 Comments:
Two thoughts. Firstly, When power goes unchecked in human hands, things will inevitably become very dark and dangerous. This is an attested truth witnessed throughout our history. That's why we need a proper law system to curb human weaknesses.
Secondly, using good things to achieve one's selfish ends is very evil. ST once says that philantrophists can be the most selfish people in the world, but they are just smart enough to make use of human compassion for a self-centered end. I agree. True goodness comes when we do good for its own sake.
BTW, I'll add your link to my blog.
agreed. As what Dr Tong mentioned before, many lawyers are those who know the law, flout the law and yet go unpunished by the law. My current module in media law seems to confirm this statement...Let's hope our political leaders will see beyond mere economics in their discharge of their duties. cheers.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home