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.

I feel do gooders when they take the form of civil libertarian lawyers are especially damaging to the structure of our society. The David Hicks fiasco is an example, then you have the refugee boat people and again from another perspective Cornelia Rau. These do-gooders seek reward for those who flaunt our laws or behave in a way that should attract a good cuff under the ear and a penalty. People used to be forced to take responsibility for their action and we were afraid of the schoolteacher, our parents and the policeman.

The police and Schoolteachers used to have control but the do-gooders have broken their will. Now the drug crazed along with the unemployable, dysfunctional underclass are out of control.

I think that the question we need to ask ourselves here is : why bad things happen to some people in the first place?

The only person who does actual good is the one who asks themselves why has the bad situation been allowed to occur? Why are some people poor and some people ill, when others are not. Finding the answers to the source of the problem, and attempting to change the situation as a matter of principle - such as changing laws, increasing funding for people living in areas where there is clear disadvantage, correcting unfair and exploitative financial relationships, is THE ONLY WAY to do good.

Any other way (such as attempting to address one individual issue affecting one individual at a time) can only do the job of arousing suspicion and is most likely "self serving".

When it comes to something serious, like breaches of international human rights law and detentions without charge, or corporate corruption like in Enron, or leaking information about government lies, I support the do-gooder wholeheartedly.

Albert Einstein

'The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.'

Edmund Burke

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

cheers,

gw

There are certainly different definitions.

My experience has been that 'do gooder' is a tag for those who want to do good but are too naive or stupid and end up doing bad. They have a good 'heart' but are not so strong in the 'head'. Do gooder is a kind of sarcastic comment usually made out of frustration as a criticism. The perception is that some people are susceptible to being influenced by evil or misguided power brokers into doing what they strongly think is right even though it is really wrong. The frustrating aspect is that doing the wrong thing can have serious negative consequences for one or more people but the do gooder dogmatically pursues their course of action anyway and will rationalise anything because they think they are doing the right thing.

Clearly this non literal usage of the term that I am accustomed to doesn't require all others to be do nothings etc. Someone who has the brains and care to literally do good in my experience doesn't get labelled as a do gooder regardless of how energetic and enthusiastically they may approach a positive series of actions. For example Mother Theresa worked tirelessly to give practical assistance to people in some of the most difficult circumstances. However she has never been called a do gooder because she genuinely did good.

I hope this helps.

Thanks mjpb. You are right. My wife is always accusing me of taking things too literally. I will have to work at a bit more flexibility in my understanding of English.

There is one point that I may disagree with you on. You are, I think, critical of those who try to do good, but do bad because they are not very bright or they do not see the big picture (my words, not yours). This sounds rather like the old statement: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". My concern here is that this can be used as an excuse for doing nothing when something should be done. For example, I might say that "I think Australia's involvement in the Iraq war is wrong; but then I do not understand international relations as well as some, perhaps I am wrong, maybe I shouldn't criticise."

There is another saying that is one of my favourites: "all that is needed for evil to prevale is for good men to do nothing". Are we to do nothing because of the fear that, in attempting to do good, we may do bad?

"For example, I might say that "I think Australia's involvement in the Iraq war is wrong; but then I do not understand international relations as well as some, perhaps I am wrong, maybe I shouldn't criticise.""

That's an interesting example, not necessarily a great one. It isn't hard to find information (in case you haven't been following the news at all) that the basis for the war was a COMPLETE lie. The enemy was Al Qaeda (Afghanistan only, not Iraq...), Saddam was not an imminent threat and had no wmd. Do you remember the MONTHS of debate and endless outcry from commentators and even the politicians that condemned Iraq for having caches of wmd ready to be used against everyone (if you don't you can always check newspaper archives)? The whole, premptive war bs? Nothing. Absolutely not a single wmd was found in Iraq. The CIA presented the false information and the Bush administration cherry picked information to present a connection between al qaeda and iraq.(the CIA shared it with all of the intelligence agencies, who were either deliberately complicit in the lie or plain incomptent and gullible...kinda scary how bad they are at their job or they are just outright corrupt). You can find all this information online and published in books written by key actors and analysts/observers who have all the facts.

So, far from claiming that you don't know enough about "international relations and shouldn't criticise", there is widely available information to you on the lies surrounding the Iraq war. (as long as you have access to the internet.)

Some times a do gooder is my enemy forever but some times you just must act.
Is it a do gooder who reports the kids up the road being flogged by a drunken father?
Only to him.
Taking your little dog in the car can be very dangerous!
Dog jumps for joy and just loves the air conditioned car its home.
Park with windows down pat the pup and walk away every unhappy old trouble making lady in sight will claim the right to ring police security and RSPCA in seconds.
Do go gooder is often not the right term.

Steel, my bit about the Iraq was was only an example of how one might be put off from doing what one believed to be right because of fear of critisism. "That bloody do-gooder thinks he knows better than the government!"

I am with you, very much against the Iraq war. I have covered it in several pages on the Net. For example http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/IraqWar.html. You might also be interested in http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/RealUSA.html.

Apathy is the enemy. We need to do what we believe is right, and not be afraid of being thought a do-gooder.

Belly - yes, I know what you mean. But that old lady thinks she is doing right; maybe she should think a bit more, but don't you see the problem?

The alternative to being a "do gooder" is being " a doer"."
" Do gooders" lasiviate in the impotence of those who need to try harder,and "doers" create more wealth for the impotent to have the time to cry out for more handouts.Being a "doer" takes an enormous amount of courage and effort.

As Johnny cash used to sing,"There are too many do goods and not enough good hard working men."

PS. This should only be viewed in the context of our western socialist's states.

A do-gooder is a word used by people who are either feel guilty or are arrogant.

It is difficult to think of a greater arrogance than someone who tries to diminish the honest or positive acts of another. How could the morality of such a person be superior? Only a very arrogant person could say that it was.

On the other hand, there are those that feel guilty. They know what the right thing to do is, and they're too frightened or lazy to do it.

The arrogant prefer people to be timid and the guilty want others to be silent. So the opposite of do-gooder is a do-nothinger.

dave clark: you seem to be a sensible and public spirited person. but like most ozzies, you also seem to be totally alienated from a sense of participation in the political life of the nation. this is natural, as politics here is not the concern of all civilians (we are not citizens), but merely the craft practiced by the politicians guild.

if oz were a democracy, 'doing good' would be natural, the result of referenda supported by the people. instead of being a weird tall poppy in an alienated populace of subjects, do-gooders would be leaders in making 'our' (not 'their') nation a better place.