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?