The term do-gooder is almost always used derogatively. No doubt do-gooders often don't achieve what they hope to achieve. Sometimes they make things worse.

But if you are not a do-gooder then doesn't it follow that you must be either a do-nothinger or a do-bader? I know which group I would rather be placed in. Surely it's better to at least try to do good, than to either do nothing or do bad?

It depends on your world view. In his book, "The Prince", Machiavelli wrote, "it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both".

The do-gooder is often (not always) a fool who voluntarily enforces the power of the state over individual liberty. S/he enforces laws where they need not necessarily be enforced. Lets take that program recently that showed a man being fined for photographing topless women on public beaches.

The predictable reaction of the do-gooder in this case is to condemn the man's behaviour and report him, call the police and get him fined. However on reflection, ask yourself what these women are doing on a public (non-nudist) beach, taking off their swimsuit in front of hundreds of onlookers in the first place? Where was the do-gooder to report the obscenity of flashing/public nudity and protecting children at the beach? How much do these women value their nudity when they deliberately reveal it to everyone at the beach and then lay down in the middle of all these people, rather than going to a nudist beach or less-populated part of the beach, with cover? It is a deliberate, conscious choice, that has associated consequences.

This situation is a clear example that shows why do-gooders are generally maligned. The normal person ("do-nothinger/dobader") will recognize the obvious contradictions in this situation and shrug his shoulders, whilst muttering to himself, "Don't take your clothes off in a crowd of people then QQ about it. But don't let that stop the do-gooder from being an idiot"

Personally, I've always viewed do-gooders as agents of political correctness.

No do-gooder, no problem.

From the comments above it is plain that different people define 'do-gooder' in different ways. I have thought of a do-gooder as someone who tries to do what he believes to be his duty; tries to do what he sees as right.

The Farlex on-line Free Dictionary defines a do-gooder as "A naive idealist who supports philanthropic or humanitarian causes or reforms".

I suppose at least a part of my purpose in posing the original question was to ask, is apathy the main alternative to being a do-gooder? Apathy, along with selfishness and ignorance, is what I see as the cause of most of the problems of the world today. Would the USA and Australia have such terrible governments if their respective peoples were not so apathetic? Wouldn't we be further along the way in reversing climate change if people were willing to make an effort to change their own ways and to pressure the government to change the rules?

you can add abuse and insult to your list of resons why people shy away from imposing do gooder law. personally i am apathetic,for myself and my family, the incidence of rage is out of control on the streets. it is better to mind ones business i feel. sad but true in this day. one values ones safety more than the imposing of what I think is correct.