Ship of Fools: How much good does a do-gooder do . .

Thread: How much good does a do-gooder do . . Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027005

Posted by Meg the Red (# 11838) on :

. . . when a do-gooder does Do Good?

Right now I am struggling to understand what is motivating a couple who are very publicly Doing Good toward some members of my family, and who in the process of helping are - I am beginning to suspect - unconsciously doing more for themselves. I hasten to add that these people are very hard-working, highly regarded members of their church community (which is also the church I grew up in), so I don't feel I can discuss my concerns with my family, even though I believe there may be long-term ill effects from these charitable acts.

Without going into specifics about the above situation, it has started me wondering about why we do good - is it a moral and/or religious imperative, a genuine expression of love and support toward the beneficiaries of our actions, a way of making ourselves feel better? None or all of the above?

Is it possible to do good without any thought of personal gain, or are most of us just slapping another coat of whitewash on the ol' sepulchre? How can we genuinely discern our own motivation for helping? And if we're not clear about our own motivations, can we ultimately to more harm than good?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Difficult.

A few weeks ago I volunteered to take the daughter of a friend back to uni - this enabled the parents to keep to their work schedule and they were grateful. But, as I did point out to them, it also enabled me to fit in a trip to an elderly aunt who is terminally ill, and to drop off something with one of my own children on the way.

Now the friends were grateful, but I was likely to do the trip anyway, although not necessarily on that day - I'd planned for slightly later.

So in a sense I did a good turn, but it was to my benefit too.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I would say that the first step to really doing good is to identify the secondary benefits one obtains by doing a given good.

Once you are aware of these, it's easier to consider your own motivations and note warning signs.

Anybody claiming they are engaging in sheer altruism with no secondary benefits at all to themselves is probably wreaking havoc, most likely by establishing a co-dependent relationship with the hapless "beneficiaries".

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meg the Red:
.... a couple who are very publicly Doing Good ...

This is the crux of it ISTM. Does it need to be so public or could it be done discreetly? Being seen to be doing good unto others can serve a validating purpose. They could be getting a boost in self-worth, a confirmation that they are indeed good Christian people.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meg the Red:

Without going into specifics about the above situation, it has started me wondering about why we do good - is it a moral and/or religious imperative, a genuine expression of love and support toward the beneficiaries of our actions, a way of making ourselves feel better?

I had a similar thought as I woke up this morning. My thought was "Is all love cupboard love?"

Even when we do good anonymously I think much of it is for ourselves, to make us feel good, or feel better.

Sometimes I cry real tears of empathy. I wonder if they show more love than the good I try to do in the world?

Posted by Meg the Red (# 11838) on :

I don't have a problem at all with people feeling good about helping others. I've worked the the charitable sector for years, and I know that a volunteer placement, for example, will not work unless both the volunteer and agency are benefiting. If giving makes you feel good and genuinely helps someone else, everybody wins, as in L'Organist's situation.

I do think that when the benefit is seen to be one-sided, and the giver is known to the recipient, it can create a burden of gratitude which can ultimately poison a relationship.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Am I misreading this in assuming that theirs a bit of 'if I get something from it, then it's less good'?
What difference dose it make if I get a return for the investment in 'doing good' Surely good isn't a 0 sum game where one must suffer for the other to benefit. Can't it be a better good if both benefit.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Our potluck dinners which include sharing enough for some of the needy in the area, are "doing good", but the events seem to be enjoyed by all, and social bonds are forming which will be "good" for all of us.

We do need the positive feedback from the good time that people had in order to help publicise the next one.

And, at the same time, those in need are seen as real people to the congregation, in ways that had not been realised before.

The fact that we all talk about how it makes us feel good is part of making sure we keep on doing it, and that the donations keep on turning up. We certainly aren't getting anything much more than that for ourselves!

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Am I misreading this in assuming that theirs a bit of 'if I get something from it, then it's less good'?
What difference dose it make if I get a return for the investment in 'doing good' Surely good isn't a 0 sum game where one must suffer for the other to benefit. Can't it be a better good if both benefit.

Yes, but if it creates a debt then has any good been done?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Boogie:
My thought was "Is all love cupboard love?"

Cupboard love? [Confused]

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Cupboard love - affection that is given purely to gain a reward. Wiki definition.

[ 10. March 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Cupboard love.

From Wiki - "Cupboard love is an English phrase referring to affection that is given purely to gain a reward."

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

People have given a few examples of good deeds, but we need a statement of what "Doing Good" (TM) means.

Is it part of a good deed that I don't enjoy doing it? Or even that I myself must suffer as a result? That sounds to me like a high bar.

Must good deeds be done in secret, like alms? If so, then those in need may not be aware that help may be available and may be even more miserable.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I think this comes under the category of "Love your neighbor as yourself". Neighbor/self. Both loved.

If your help does actual good (and you'd better examine this part [Paranoid]

), and you feel good about it, to me its win-win. I don't think even the Bible says to actually do things totally selflessly. After all, the good things you do in secret are rewarded by God in secret. And aiming at suffering or even non-reward in altruism, IMO, is something of an ego-trip anyway. I don't think that you can get away from getting something out of doing whatever you do. The only thing I see Jesus disapproving is doing something good mainly to impress other people or even yourself with your outstanding virtue.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There are a lot of people who think that "it can't be good if you enjoy it," but somebody (?) pointed out that as people grow in goodness, they tend to enjoy doing good more--which sort of knocks the first belief on the head. I do think that public do-goodism is dangerous as it is very likely to get corrupted, mainly by leading people into pride or hypocrisy; but that doesn't mean that nothing good may ever be publicized. It just means being very very careful IMHO.

Given the choice, I think it's better to take Jesus' advice about not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing, and if you're doing good, to also do your best to be invisible as far as it lies with you. That way you avoid most of the temptations plus the person on the receiving end isn't made a spectacle of.

When I worked in missions (officially, I mean) we were told to ask ourselves often, "Why am I doing X? Is it for what I personally get out of it (emotionally, socially, etc.) or is it for the people I claim to serve? Whose needs are going to be met by this proposed activity, mine or theirs?" Sometimes just asking that question makes it clear that the action in question shouldn't go forward. And if more churches asked themselves that question, I think we'd see fewer splashy public short term volunteer mission trips, and more behind-the-scenes funding / long term mission service commitments.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

But then...

quote:
Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 5:15-17

Tricky, huh? [Biased]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I wonder if anyone here has been the object of someone else's efforts to remake them in their own image? Frankly, I'm a bit of an oddball. I have my own way of doing things, and my own set of standards to meet, and my own values, and this doesn't always lead to what others would consider the Ideal Outcome. Example: I ran for elective office. The office pays $100 per annum, and takes far more time than I'd bargained for. (It is time-limited, though; I won't run again.)

In short, it eats up time and fails to reward me monetarily, and this, according to my would-be advisors, is evidence that I am disordered and need some Good done to me.

As one result, I am being deluged with masses of well-meant but (AFAICT) useless advice from others in my life about how to handle the time and money crunches involved. "Just don't show up!" -- for which I could be disciplined by the body I serve. "Just do the minimum!" -- in which I'd be failing those who elected me in the belief that I'd at least try to represent their interests.

These advisors are Doing Good (or trying to, anyway). I, on the other hand, am merely being annoyed. And if I actually followed some of this advice, I could even get into the kinds of trouble that might land me on the front page of the local rag, and Not In A Good Way.

A great deal of Good, IMO from observing myself and others Do It, is actually an effort at formation. If only the poor (for example) would Act Like Middle-Class Us, they wouldn't be poor, and I wouldn't have to feel so badly and/or work so hard on their behalf. If only the crazies would act less crazy, they'd lead more productive, less disordered lives, and I wouldn't have to feel so badly and/or work so hard on their behalf. And so on.

Thing is, though, people have this strange bemusing right to set their own values and goals and to live according to these, so long as their efforts don't bump up against somebody else's rights.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Am I misreading this in assuming that theirs a bit of 'if I get something from it, then it's less good'?
What difference dose it make if I get a return for the investment in 'doing good' Surely good isn't a 0 sum game where one must suffer for the other to benefit. Can't it be a better good if both benefit.
Yes, but if it creates a debt then has any good been done?

Depends on the kind of debt I suppose. Having been on the receiving end of good things that came with no strings attached, I felt that I had an obligation to also do good when I could. Call it pay it forward.
Even if I had had to make a return to the person/ persons for what I received I wouldn't have minded. Indeed never minded as it made it less a charity and more a help. A debt can be a good thing in it self if it's not a burden.
And having written that I realise that you probably meant debt as in a burden. In which case no good was done by the do-gooder and in fact it was entirely self serving and selfish interference.
Are we actually talking about busy bodies more than people who do good in the neighbourly or charitable sense?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Perhaps the "goodness" (such an imprecise term) of an event depends on point of view.

Suppose you enjoy watching ballet. From your point of view, the dancer is doing something good. The dancer may not enjoy performing on this particular occasion: "Ouch! My feet hurt" or "Boring! I've done this too many times!" If the dancer does enjoy or does not enjoy her/his work, does that mean it is or is not good (and in which order)?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I wonder if it is useful to think on something concrete. This is based on colleagues at work but as I am recalling after quite some time, the words are not accurate and the names are changed to protect the innocent.

A colleague at work retired. We will call her Sue, which is not her name. Now Sue was married but no children and both her and her husband had had decent paying jobs. A colleague called Kay had for years run errands and done things for Sue. After Sue retired another friend Pat quite often did these things rather than Kay and indeed Kay's offers were overlooked.

Kay commented "After all we have done for Sue over the years, you'd have thought she'd keep up the friendship. Pat is just hoping to get a legacy in the end".

So there are ways that good deeds can be seen as an investment in future reward. Sometimes people do good deeds either to get people to rely on them or for possible future reward.

Or take another occasion, this time a friend called Steve had mental health problems. At one time he came to see me as a possible source of help but I lived miles from Steve and in seeking help from myself he put himself outside his present support networks. Should I help or should I deliberately distance myself so he does not see me as an escape option and works with his support networks? The one that I decided was best for Steve was not the one that made me feel good about myself.

So I guess there are two different questions here. Firstly there is doing things for ulterior motives and what role they should play in doing things. It is not always bad to do good things for those reasons, but we need to be honest about them. Secondly there is the very tricky problem about being responsible about the good you do. That includes not letting people who are vulnerable rely on you for support if there is reason to believe you will may well not be able to supply what they expect you to.

Jengie

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There are various reasons for doing Good, friendship, pity, love, self regard or a feeling of reciprocation for Good that was done for you.

There's a dilemma in that I prefer discreet or even anonymous helping, but in some case publicly doing good encourages others to do so as well. It's hard to insist that the charity thermometer not include your donation, and sometimes providing matching funds is an incentive.

It's always worth checking if one is damaging oneself by becoming overly proud about an action and much more the case that you should try to avoid hurting the person being helped. That's a lot harder than it looks. Often the choice is between several unattractive options.

Finally, doing good is an act of communication and you need to make sure that the message does not contradict the intent of helping the other person. It's great if the person feels like they are valued by others, it's not good if they feel like they are being seem as a problem to be solved.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meg the Red:
Is it possible to do good without any thought of personal gain, or are most of us just slapping another coat of whitewash on the ol' sepulchre? How can we genuinely discern our own motivation for helping? And if we're not clear about our own motivations, can we ultimately to more harm than good?

It's hard to see how anyone could expect any personal gain from laying down their life for a friend, which is something many people throughout history have actually done. For most of us, though, I'd say that we are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between that and whitewashing the sepulcher. In the same way that God promised Moses that he would not clear the Holy Land all at once, but would only do so gradually, I think he also promises us that he will lead us gradually from wherever we are to help us travel in the direction he wants us to be heading.

I think it's possible to discern something of our own (often mixed) motivations by reflecting on what we enjoy or anticipate the most in anything we do, or contemplate doing. Is it the joy of knowing we've helped, or the joy of having people praise us? We can also learn a lot about ourselves by asking ourselves the question "what if no one would ever be able to found out?"

But whether or not we're clear about our motivations, we can do more harm than good even with the purest of intentions, so we always need to try to be wise in addition to being well-intentioned.

At least, that's how I see it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What is wrong with "win-win"? There doesn't have to be a loser.

I suppose self-conscious unselfishness retains some elements of selfishness as does being proud about being humble. But isn't it just better to get on with stuff first?

We had an emergency yesterday. I'm suffering from yet another winter virus, and have spent most of the last four days in bed, coughing, sneezing and spluttering. Yesterday morning, our downstairs toilet refused to stop flushing and my wife asked me I'd I would mind having a look. So I got up, had a look and thought, "I can fix this". It's a fault I've fixed before, without needing to turn the water off. But this time, in the process, I broke a fitting and suddenly we had water gushing out under high pressure. A neighbour, just about to go out shopping and taking her baby with her, heard the commotion and asked if she could help. I panicked, couldn't remember where the local valve was to stop the water rushing out, and put my hand over the escaping water flow to slow it down. The neighbour who had stopped, phoned up her brother, who was a plumber. Meanwhile my wife, who saw I was panicked by the turn of events, had gone to another neighbour for help in turning the pressure off. He was also unwell, but got up to help. I was getting wetter and wetter then finally remembered where the valve was, a small screw fitting concealed at the back of the toilet which needed a quarter turn. So, leaving the water to pour out for a few seconds, I got the screwdriver, turned off the valve and the internal fountain stopped. Neighbour 1 told me that her brother would be with us in twenty minutes. Neighbour 2, suffering from the same winter virus as me, arrived in dressing gown and pyjamas with a screw driver just as the fountain stopped. He was fine, saw the state I was in, was relieved that I'd finally remembered how to turn off the water. His wife and mine sent both of us back to our beds, in my case with a preliminary towelling down and a change into fresh nightclothes. I was in a bit of a state as you can imagine. Plumber arrived, inspected the damage, ordered a part and will be around tomorrow to fix it. Emergency over.

All my fault, really. In trying to fix an inconvenient problem, I discounted the simple precautionary need to turn off the water and created a shambles! All we know is that we were in receipt of good neighbouring in an emergency. I don't think either my wife or I are too concerned about whether our neighbours' helps were motivated by self-interest. We were just glad they were there.

There might be something to reflect on in the Samaritan parable. Those who passed by on the other side were clearly calculating their own self interest. The Samaritan in the story simply responded to a need and got involved. So he was the good neighbour.

Sure, it can get complicated. Most of us, seeing someone else getting mugged on the street will give some thought to personal safety before deciding how to wade in. But a lot of life isn't like that. The immediate response to the needs of others is just something we do, acting out of what kind of people we are. There's always time for reflection. But later, maybe? I'm not sure we need careful calculation of our motivations all the time. Looking to the needs of others requires the eyes in our heads and the eyes of our hearts to be focused outward, not inwards. Too much self reflection can be as counter productive as none at all.

[And, yes, I know that a little more forethought by me would have avoided the mess. I'll remember next time.]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I give some educational help to two young people here. They are concerned that they do not pay me back (forgetting the smiles from the entire family when money for their school fees arrive.)

I told them I need no payment other than good grades, and if they are ever in a position to help someone when they are older that will be repayment enough.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas 62
There might be something to reflect on in the Samaritan parable. Those who passed by on the other side were clearly calculating their own self interest.

There may have been more to it than that. AIUI it was not clear whether the man was dead or alive. If the priest was going to Jerusalem to fulfill priestly duties, he must not touch a dead body. If he did he would become ritually unclean and unable to perform his priestly duties.

It was a matter of priorities. I think that the priest and Levite got them wrong.

Moo

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas 62
There might be something to reflect on in the Samaritan parable. Those who passed by on the other side were clearly calculating their own self interest.
There may have been more to it than that. AIUI it was not clear whether the man was dead or alive. If the priest was going to Jerusalem to fulfill priestly duties, he must not touch a dead body. If he did he would become ritually unclean and unable to perform his priestly duties.

It was a matter of priorities. I think that the priest and Levite got them wrong.

Moo

Indeed. They put being theologically correct over pastoral concerns.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All my fault, really. In trying to fix an inconvenient problem, I discounted the simple precautionary need to turn off the water and created a shambles!

What a fantastic story though. Thanks so much for sharing.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Good points, thanks.

Enlightened self-interest at work?

"I must avoid uncleanness for the sake of my duties - oh and BTW this will reduce my chances of being mugged as well?"

A different kind of "win-win" - unless that is you are the one in dire straits. Then it's just loss.

There is a kind of cross-over from Luke into Matt 23, about "not lifting a finger to help".

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

One of the cafes I frequent operates a 'suspended cup' scheme whereby you can pay for an extra cup of tea or coffee, this is given to someone who is needy, or who asks for it or who just may have left their wallet behind. I've paid for a few as I like the idea. A couple of weeks ago I was having a horrible day so I went in there. The barista just said "Bad day?" and gave me a free cup of tea.

Certainly I would have had the money to pay for it, but it gave me much more than a warm drink and I went home with my spirits lifted.

I like being both a giver and a recipient.

Huia

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
People have given a few examples of good deeds, but we need a statement of what "Doing Good" (TM) means.

As far as I can see, nobody has considered the opinion of the recipient. Suppose I saved someone's life would they care if I'd done if for the wrong motives?

Suppose I had the opportunity to save a life and decided not to because I would be doing it for the wrong reasons, would the dying person say "You did the right thing, I'd rather die than have you feeling smug/proud/whatever".

If you think you should only do good for the right reason aren't you in danger of believing your future state of mind (or soul) is more important than other people's welfare?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

If you think you should only do good for the right reason aren't you in danger of believing your future state of mind (or soul) is more important than other people's welfare?

Very good.

There is a corollary. We are not always the answer to others' problems, so some awareness of our own limitations and limits is important. It is possible to make matters worse by misplaced help.

But that being said, focusing outwards does seem to be a better general approach.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
A couple of weeks ago I was having a horrible day so I went in there. The barista just said "Bad day?" and gave me a free cup of tea.

Certainly I would have had the money to pay for it, but it gave me much more than a warm drink and I went home with my spirits lifted.

I like being both a giver and a recipient.

I think this and the other stories on this thread point out a bit of a paradox that intrigues me about how we go about helping each other.

On the one hand, letting people know how we're helping them opens us up to the risk of having our motives subverted by our desire for things like praise, being liked, and maintaining a good reputation, and it can therefore make sense sometimes to help others anonymously. But on the other hand, it seems like the personalized expression of sympathy or compassion that can be communicated in a personal interaction can be a very important part of the exchange. Help given to us anonymously will benefit us to the degree it helps us resolve our problems, but the added touch of a personal exchange such as you describe can have that additional benefit of lifting the spirits of both people in a powerful way that anonymous help will generally lack to a significant degree.

For instance, in the situation you describe, the money was donated anonymously to enable the barista to offer you the free cup of tea, but it sounds like the personal interaction with the barista is what really lifted your spirits (and partly because it was a vivid reminder of what your own previous donations might have similarly enabled). If the donated money was just sitting in a jar for you to use when you felt inclined, it would not have had nearly the same effect. It's as though the primary impact of a charitable act, in many cases, is that mutual lifting of spirits and the action that accomplishes it is just a means.

It can be hard sometimes to know which way to go in any given situation. Other times, it can be extremely easy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You know, many of the responses here appear to belong in the first world problem thread in Heaven.
Just help others, whatever your reasons, just help.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just help others, whatever your reasons, just help.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We are not always the answer to others' problems, so some awareness of our own limitations and limits is important. It is possible to make matters worse by misplaced help.

I wish I'd thought of saying both the above.

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It's as though the primary impact of a charitable act, in many cases, is that mutual lifting of spirits and the action that accomplishes it is just a means.

In "The Gift" Lewis Hyde describes 'gift giving' cultures such as some Pacific peoples and some N American native tribes. Giving of gifts encourages what he calls the "liveliness" of cultures: you give and feel better (in some societies gain higher status). The recipient is expected to pass on something (not the gift itself - that would be bad manners). And so it goes round the tribe (the recipients of our help also give - just not to us). "What goes around comes around" being the message. And those who have excess gifts can facilitate it.

The Parable of the Talents springs to mind.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0