Must Great Historical Figures Also Be Good People? Mother Teresa and Gandhi Were Only Human

Whenever I research great figures from history, I sometimes get a strange feeling.

Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi are presented in textbooks as unquestionably great people, as though even their characters were flawless.

But dig a little deeper, and some rather troublesome stories emerge.

“Wait, was this person really so admirable?”

To what extent should we separate a great person’s achievements from their character?

Was Mother Teresa Really a Saint?

Mother Teresa is known as a symbol of compassion who cared for the poor and even received the Nobel Peace Prize.

However, the facilities she ran have been criticized for inadequate hygiene and medical care, as well as for an attitude that religiously glorified suffering. Questions have also been raised about how donations were used.

More ironic still is the criticism that while poor people received care in austere facilities, she herself sought advanced medical treatment when she became ill.

Someone who preached that suffering had meaning sought the latest medical care for her own suffering.

It is a story that gives you pause.

But surely “she helped poor people” and “she was a person of exemplary character” are two different assessments to begin with.

Gandhi Was Quite an Eccentric Too

The same applies to Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian independence.

Through his campaigns of nonviolence and civil disobedience, he resisted British colonial rule and influenced human rights movements around the world.

But when you look into his private life, some highly unusual episodes emerge.

Late in life, he practiced sharing a bed naked with young women in order to test his own celibacy. He apparently regarded it as a form of religious discipline, but by modern standards it was extremely troubling.

He also left behind discriminatory remarks about Black people from his younger years.

Even so, none of that erases his achievements in the Indian independence movement.

A person who preached nonviolence was not necessarily exemplary in every aspect of his private life. That is all there is to it.

Stop Turning Great People into Saints

What do we expect from great figures in the first place?

If someone is an outstanding politician, it should be enough for them to achieve results in politics. If someone is a scientist, it should be enough for them to leave behind important research.

Yet once people are given the label “great,” we somehow begin demanding perfection in their character as well.

We expect them to be beyond reproach in private, devoted to their families, kind to the vulnerable, free from prejudice, and sincere with everyone.

Does such a person really exist?

Historical figures are often glorified by later generations that select only the convenient parts of their lives.

Then, when inconvenient facts emerge, people start denouncing them as hypocrites.

We elevate them to gods without asking, then become angry when we discover they were human. That is remarkably self-serving.

The French Approach May Be Surprisingly Rational

French political culture tends to distinguish between a politician’s private life and political competence.

Even if a politician has numerous affairs, people may still recognize that person’s ability as a politician.

In Japan, the discovery of an affair alone can sometimes force a politician to resign. But how much does a person’s romantic life really have to do with their ability to make policy?

An excellent politician is not necessarily a person of outstanding character, and a person of outstanding character is not necessarily an excellent politician.

Corruption and crimes involving the abuse of power are another matter. But it does not seem rational to bring up aspects of someone’s private life that have nothing to do with their work and use them to reject the person entirely.

We do not elect politicians to give awards to admirable human beings. We elect them to deliver competent government.

Achievements Are Not Erased by a Character Test

Revelations about Gandhi’s unusual private life do not change the role he played in the Indian independence movement.

Even if there were problems with Mother Teresa’s work, that does not erase the fact that she reached out to poor people. The problems should be examined as problems.

What matters is evaluating achievements as achievements and problems as problems.

In fact, it would hardly be surprising if people who left their mark on history possessed intense obsessions or lopsided values unlike those of ordinary people.

Trying to turn such figures into model students from a moral education textbook is what strains credibility.

A great historical figure is not someone who excelled in every respect. It is someone who accomplished one extraordinarily significant thing.

And yet later generations arbitrarily decide that their character must have been perfect too.

The great figures themselves would probably find it irritating. Decades or centuries after their deaths, people they never met are still appraising their character.