You seem to be implying an either-or choice where one does not exist. Of course we should evaluate the results of our actions. And of course that information should be used next time.
What we can't do is somehow try to add it all up after the fact to figure out if it was worth it or not. At the time we make decisions based on what we know and who we are. It's our embrace of our uncertainty of knowledge yet courage to make what we feel our moral choices anyway that is noble. The author seemed to try to be figuring out if what he did was the right thing or not. That's whacked. Instead, the question is whether, knowing what he did then, he was authentic to who he was.
Let's try this a different way. You could replay the exact same article with three different conclusions. The kid could have escaped poverty and went on to law school. The kid could have been a farce made up by the religious guy. The kid could have spent all the money on drugs. Who cares? If you care about Haiti and the larger situation, it's all anecdotal anyway. If you don't care about the larger situation, then this story is just about the unique and personal experiences each of the participants has. There is no larger story. So all of this other stuff about the macro situation is just a form of projection the author is experiencing while trying to make sense of his own experience. That's fine -- as long as he understands it. But in the end it's just a framing technique.
The personal story was the author trying to figure out if things he had no idea about -- what was actually happening with his money -- were important to the decisions and feelings he had about his own religion during his teen years. It's almost like he was an observer of his own life.
There's a strange disconnect.
What was really going on, for both he and the kid, was that they were taking a big piece of fuzzy, unfortunate, and difficult life situation and making hard choices about what to do. The kid stays with his family. He doesn't stand out, stays with the herd. The author still sends money, but is unsure why, except to say that would have been even worse. Then he realizes that he's so involved that he has to know what's been going on. Why the change of heart? I'm not exactly sure. Is he really worried about evangelizing kids? Also, I left the article not really being sure. The most important part of the story, the decisions he made, is the foggiest. He walks right by the most important part of all of this, his own values, and instead waves his hands around at the preacher, the county, the NGO, dumb westerners, and so on. Then he continues to give! It's like he does these things and doesn't know why.
In my mind these choices are where the real story is, not trying to piece it all together into some kind of uber narrative about Haiti (or religious NGOs) in general (which would also be a good story.)
That's an interesting way to look at it. But you seem to be neglecting the emotional angle, and his (somewhat vicarious) connection to the boy. He wanted to know if anything that he imagined was grounded in reality.
I agree that the article is a bit confusing. What was he really thinking? But I got the feeling the author was just as confused. At any rate, I learned some things, and it was pleasantly written, so not a waste of time.
What we can't do is somehow try to add it all up after the fact to figure out if it was worth it or not. At the time we make decisions based on what we know and who we are. It's our embrace of our uncertainty of knowledge yet courage to make what we feel our moral choices anyway that is noble. The author seemed to try to be figuring out if what he did was the right thing or not. That's whacked. Instead, the question is whether, knowing what he did then, he was authentic to who he was.
Let's try this a different way. You could replay the exact same article with three different conclusions. The kid could have escaped poverty and went on to law school. The kid could have been a farce made up by the religious guy. The kid could have spent all the money on drugs. Who cares? If you care about Haiti and the larger situation, it's all anecdotal anyway. If you don't care about the larger situation, then this story is just about the unique and personal experiences each of the participants has. There is no larger story. So all of this other stuff about the macro situation is just a form of projection the author is experiencing while trying to make sense of his own experience. That's fine -- as long as he understands it. But in the end it's just a framing technique.
The personal story was the author trying to figure out if things he had no idea about -- what was actually happening with his money -- were important to the decisions and feelings he had about his own religion during his teen years. It's almost like he was an observer of his own life. There's a strange disconnect.
What was really going on, for both he and the kid, was that they were taking a big piece of fuzzy, unfortunate, and difficult life situation and making hard choices about what to do. The kid stays with his family. He doesn't stand out, stays with the herd. The author still sends money, but is unsure why, except to say that would have been even worse. Then he realizes that he's so involved that he has to know what's been going on. Why the change of heart? I'm not exactly sure. Is he really worried about evangelizing kids? Also, I left the article not really being sure. The most important part of the story, the decisions he made, is the foggiest. He walks right by the most important part of all of this, his own values, and instead waves his hands around at the preacher, the county, the NGO, dumb westerners, and so on. Then he continues to give! It's like he does these things and doesn't know why.
In my mind these choices are where the real story is, not trying to piece it all together into some kind of uber narrative about Haiti (or religious NGOs) in general (which would also be a good story.)