Are Do-Gooders Truly Arrogant?
The do-gooders have a reputation for being arrogant; and I think that this reputation is ill-merited. The reason is that I know one of the most famous do-gooders in all of history: Patch Adams. In his interactions with me, he was not arrogant at all. Although he is wealthy and famous, he was willing to reach out to me and answer the questions that I had in a way that in no way made me feel inferior.
I've known any number of other do-gooders; and they likewise did not come across to me as being arrogant. Rather these were the people who were good at helping people and were willing to put these abilities to use. Whether it was in finding jobs, figuring themselves out or standing up to the people who were bullying them, these do-gooders were able to meaningfully help other people, including people from whom they had nothing to expect in return.
Who are do-gooders? Mostly people who have figured out something that other people haven't figured out and believe that they can help others get to a better place. Whether through thinking things through, working through personal issues, having religious or spiritual revelations, or attaining one or another kind of success, these are people who have meaningful things to offer.
If you have been given a gift, why not share it with others? If you have an ability, why not put it to good use? Is it arrogant to want to make things better for other people? Or is it arrogant instead to force people to stay in bad situations or bad thinking, shorn of the attentions of those who can help them come to a better place?
Really, we see arrogance all around us, and much of it is among people who are against do-gooders. Wife-beaters, child molesters, and right-wing and Muslim fundamentalists who think it their job to subjugate others, are more arrogant than the do-gooders, and they are not doing anybody a whit of good. Some measure of pride is healthy. It protects people's rights and liberties from the abusers and bullies who want to run roughshod over them or enslave them. By the standards of some Christians intelligence, creativity, beauty, science, technology, wealth and democracy can all be regarded as hubris; which means, logically, that it is to arrogance that the world owes what it has. And that includes the Christian's own big-screen TV, SUV, hot meals and representative democracy.
Even if some do-gooders are arrogant, they come nowhere close to owning arrogance. We see exceptional arrogance among conservatives who think that they have God on their side and that nobody else does, or that they are America and that nobody else is. It is time that things be put into perpsective. Some do-gooders may be arrogant; but they come nowhere close to owning arrogance, and most arrogance belongs to people who aren't do-gooders and are in many cases against them.
I've known any number of other do-gooders; and they likewise did not come across to me as being arrogant. Rather these were the people who were good at helping people and were willing to put these abilities to use. Whether it was in finding jobs, figuring themselves out or standing up to the people who were bullying them, these do-gooders were able to meaningfully help other people, including people from whom they had nothing to expect in return.
Who are do-gooders? Mostly people who have figured out something that other people haven't figured out and believe that they can help others get to a better place. Whether through thinking things through, working through personal issues, having religious or spiritual revelations, or attaining one or another kind of success, these are people who have meaningful things to offer.
If you have been given a gift, why not share it with others? If you have an ability, why not put it to good use? Is it arrogant to want to make things better for other people? Or is it arrogant instead to force people to stay in bad situations or bad thinking, shorn of the attentions of those who can help them come to a better place?
Really, we see arrogance all around us, and much of it is among people who are against do-gooders. Wife-beaters, child molesters, and right-wing and Muslim fundamentalists who think it their job to subjugate others, are more arrogant than the do-gooders, and they are not doing anybody a whit of good. Some measure of pride is healthy. It protects people's rights and liberties from the abusers and bullies who want to run roughshod over them or enslave them. By the standards of some Christians intelligence, creativity, beauty, science, technology, wealth and democracy can all be regarded as hubris; which means, logically, that it is to arrogance that the world owes what it has. And that includes the Christian's own big-screen TV, SUV, hot meals and representative democracy.
Even if some do-gooders are arrogant, they come nowhere close to owning arrogance. We see exceptional arrogance among conservatives who think that they have God on their side and that nobody else does, or that they are America and that nobody else is. It is time that things be put into perpsective. Some do-gooders may be arrogant; but they come nowhere close to owning arrogance, and most arrogance belongs to people who aren't do-gooders and are in many cases against them.
Comments (10)
I think there are different types of people who might be seen as do-gooders.
It depends on their motivation for what they are doing....the type I am dubious about are those who try to do it for 'blownie points'...with society or whatever their god might be etc...
Because of this motivation I do kind of feel these people might often do more harm than good.
Then there are the virtue signallers....enough said.
People who try to make the world better for more general reasons, might be ok...they should be honest with themselves and to others etc...that it makes them feel good...or they are driven by guilt....etc.
I think that the arrogance here is about something else than 'doing good' to others. People can have a condescending attitude that they even don't notice. Perhaps that is the 'arrogance'.
Do-gooders are likely to have the usual and customary set of flaws and virtues that most people possess. Oh, well, probably somewhat fewer murderous urges and more soft-hearted wishful thinking episodes, but otherwise, pretty much the same.
Yes, well, a lot of people get defensive around those who make them feel inferior.
"Do-gooder" conventionally has negative connotations. Do-gooders may be moralizers (in the "self-righteous" sense), they're typically seen as naive meddlers, etc.
Yep.
Here's one definition I found from Google: "a well-meaning but [i]unrealistic or interfering[/I] philanthropist or reformer".
I don't think there's much more to this discussion than that. Seems kind of silly to try to turn the tables and argue that do-gooders are fine and dandy. What's the next discussion: [i]Are Idiots Actually Very Intelligent?[/I]
In that case, could I not be "in the wrong" even when I'm doing what - for all non-fanatic observers - is a good, altruistic, charitative, beneficial act?
What pisses me off about do-gooders is that they act as if they have a handle on truth - like, they are sure that "doing good" is the right thing to do. It is up to interpretation, man!
But perhaps it isn't! What if we are in some sort of nightmare reality driven by a god who has already decided we are trash - but we are useful as cannon fodder for their disciples (someone has to to play infidel in the Jihad-was-right-all-along game!)
In such a warped reality, doing good is actually just piling up more "negative points" on an already "lost" person. Like: it not only is an infidel, it is an infidel who tries to ilude the true believer with loving acts. "Disgusting!" they would say.
In summary: do-gooders act according to a moral compass always pointing north, and that such strength of belief is at odds with the ambiguity we should have as investigators of reality. We simply do not know what the next person is deserving of, and to "help" him or her is an act of cosmic arrogance.
The term is often used by people who have a vested interest in the continuance of a socially harmful practice to try to delegitimise those seeking to end the practice.
Are we supposed to be talking about actual do-gooders or just 'do-gooders': those who get mislabeled as such?
There's the same problem here as in the discussion on political correctness.