In my essay The Red Light of Punishment I considered the atheist argument that theists do not perform charitable deeds for pure motives because theists function under a system of reward and punishment. Of course, atheists are subjectively imposing purity of intention as a virtue. Yet, the reason why their argument fails is that: it presupposes that they can read the minds and discern the motives of theists and it does not take into consideration the ulterior motives of atheist who perform charitable acts.
The American Humanists Association (hereinafter AHA) is raising donated funds during a time of worldwide recession nor in order to help the needy but in order to push the fallacious argument from pure intentionality. They are raising donated funds in order to place ads on American buses that will read, “Why believe in God? Be good for goodness’ sake.”
The ad presents a fallacious non sequitur and I have already written on the campaign and a similar one in the UK in the following essays:
Atheist Charity – A Huge Success
Another Atheist Charity – A Huge Success
Charity – Secular Liberals vs. Religious Conservatives
In this essay I was interested in considering the question of what a pure motivation is and whether the AHA practices what they preach (with donated funds).
Being an atheist does in no way ensure that the performing of charitable acts is done according to the alleged virtue of pure motives (I exampled some of them in …Red Light…).
Let us consider one such example from the AHA themselves. On the front page of their website they state:
“Be good for goodness’ sake and support our ad campaign. Contributions are matched by the Appignani Million Dollar Challenge.”
Just what is “the Appignani Million Dollar Challenge”?
An AHA Press Release entitled Humanism Gets Million Dollar Boost from Louis Appignani explains.
“During an awards ceremony at the 67th annual conference of the American Humanist Association (AHA) Friday night, humanists from across the United States witnessed a turning point for a movement which has been edging closer to ‘mainstream.’ Louis Appignani…awarded the AHA a check in the amount of $250,000 and indicated it was a down payment on his million dollar challenge grant…
Met with cheers and applause, Appignani explained that he has pledged to match donations made to the AHA up to the amount of one million dollars. With over a quarter million already raised against the challenge, Appignani presented the check at the Humanist of the Year banquet…a revelation that was met with overwhelming public support. An enthusiastic crowd donated tens of thousands of additional dollars following the awards ceremony, indicating an excitement within the humanist movement…
‘We’re indebted to Lou Appignani for his generous gift,’ said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. ‘His donation to the movement will help us develop more and better programs and initiatives. In addition, his excitement for and dedication to humanism and the AHA can’t help but be contagious, and we expect it will galvanize our members and supporters for some time to come. For that we can’t thank him enough.’
The announcement was made during an awards ceremony that recognized distinguished politicians…”
So let us infer some of the motivations that may have, I say may have, been a factor:
Firstly, the announcement with Lou Appignani’s name and mention of his generous donation is on the very front page of the AHA’s website on the world wide web. He is having his name advertised to the planet as being a charitable guy.
Next, the AHA published a “press release,” which is meant to be released to the press so that they and he may be all the more so patted on the back.
The donation was made during an “awards ceremony” where you publicly praise individuals. The individuals just happen to be politicians and it never hurts to scratch a politician’s back because they will likely do the same for you.
Lou Appignani’s pure actions were “Met with cheers and applause.”
Was “met with overwhelming public support.”
And the end result was that “An enthusiastic crowd donated tens of thousands.”
Moreover, the AHA itself states that they are “indebted” to Lou Appignani.
This is because “his excitement…can’t help but be contagious” which is good for the goose and gander alike.
Lou Appignani’s wealth is expected to “galvanize our members and supporters.”
Lastly, for his pure giving “we can’t thank him enough.”
I freely admit that these are inferences. Yet, the question is valid: is this what they mean by be good for goodness’ sake? Award ceremonies for politicians, hundreds of thousands of dollars received as donations before a crowd that is virtually wooing, worldwide advertising of the puritan’s name, indebtedness and thankfulness for the money and the expectation of wallet opening contagion?
This may very well be part of the counterargument against the fallacious argument from pure intentionality and certainly evidence that in a time of worldwide recession the AHA are raising donated funds in order to aggrandize themselves.