Avoiding being a "do gooder" in life, (challenging subject again)

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
I start many of these challenging posts by acknowledging I'm probably as guilty as anyone else when it comes to being a "do gooder", (by this I mean, if it needs explaining, "someone whose actions may have very good intentions, but nonetheless ends up making life more difficult, or else raises false and unattainable hopes", that kind of thing).

I remember once telling someone they were behaving like a " do gooder " and they took great umbrage at the suggestion, (I can't remember the exact circumstances, but I think my comment had some justification, no matter the person concerned didn't think so, and couldn't listen, should there have been any truth in it).

Anyway, on this thread I've been prompted by watching a moving account on tv of a group of fathers who have all tragically lost a child, and all express the desire to try to help other fathers/mother having to go through what they've faced, (and of course, avoid the loss and suffering of their children).

What can possibly be wrong with that I'm sure you think?

Well, my objection to start with is that our lives cannot possibly be made so safe, that no one ever suffers what others have suffered before. That may be a statement of the obvious, and perhaps no one claims all suffering can be removed from our lives, but the issue I have is with those who have undoubtedly suffered, (and their children have tragically suffered), will know how this situation can be alleviated.

They couldn't help there own child avoid whatever befell them, to be perfectly brutal about things, so whatever was the cause, they can't be sure, and no one else can be sure, their ideas will do any good, (including those in authority being pressured into making changes to the law).

To sum up then, I don't think you can expect to live your life without encountering trouble, I don't think it ultimately helps those you might think you're trying to help here, (in the instance I've mentioned above the children losing their lives and their parents), by encouraging them to think a life without jeopardy is possiblypossibly, or that a "do gooder" attitude to life really helps, in fact I think it may harm the child in many ways.

Apologies that this post is long and waffly, but if you can get any idea of my meaning, and argument here, perhaps a useful discussion can ensue.
 

I am a dogooder by nature and it is my lifestyle. I wouldn't want to be otherwise because there is a greater purpose to doing good than meets the eye. What I do think people should do, and this includes dogooders, is to set boundaries with others. Of course life has its peaks and valleys but I would rather WISELY see the best the world has to offer while being aware that anyone's life can change on a dime. It's how an individual handles these valleys that matters. How your mind interprets these events is half the journey to a happier, more fulfilling life. I hope I am not missing the point, here?
 
chic said:
I am a dogooder by nature and it is my lifestyle. I wouldn't want to be otherwise because there is a greater purpose to doing good than meets the eye. What I do think people should do, and this includes dogooders, is to set boundaries with others. Of course life has its peaks and valleys but I would rather WISELY see the best the world has to offer while being aware that anyone's life can change on a dime. It's how an individual handles these valleys that matters. How your mind interprets these events is half the journey to a happier, more fulfilling life. I hope I am not missing the point, here?
Click to expand...
I've not explained myself well here, so apologies for this failing once again.

The real point about someone who should be described as a "do gooder", is that whatever they think they're achieving they end up "doing more harm than good".

Hence there is all the difference in the world between that kind of " do holder", and what you'd hope is the attitude most folks in the world take, of wishing to do more good than harm, and wanting to help other people along the way, (obviously there are many great people who have done incredible work helping others in so many ways).

So no, I'm not in any way trying to impugn you, and as stated in the OP I'm sure there are occasions when I slip into the trap of thinking I'm doing good and failing just by doing so, (or considering I know what's best for everyone else).
 
Last edited:
If I choose a fairly trivial example of where folks might slip into what could be described as "do gooder" mode, children used to be encouraged to play conkers when we were kids, (my dad going to great lengths to find them for my brother and I).

This is now apparently banned in school as being too dangerous, and I'd suggest for all who might have had some kind of accident through playing the game, many many more had some of the fun taken out of life.
 
I'm sorry but do-gooders where I live are the type of people who leave angry notes on cars parked in handicapped spaces because they don't feel the person who got out of the car was disabled enough to park there.

Do-gooders are also people who call police and give them your license plate # if you forget to use your turn signal or commit any other driving faux pas. Basically pains in the neck who should mind their own business.
 
Judycat said:
I'm sorry but do-gooders where I live are the type of people who leave angry notes on cars parked in handicapped spaces because they don't feel the person who got out of the car was disabled enough to park there.
Do-gooders are also people who call police and give them your license plate # if you forget to use your turn signal or commit any other driving faux pas. Basically pains in the neck who should mind their own business.
Click to expand...
You've grasped my argument very well here, (though of course the desire to do good in the world is laudable as others have stated).

There's the "busy body" aspect I agree, though being a "do gooder" is slightly different in that there is the allusion or illusion to having a proper reason for the interference isnt there.

Here is a dictionary definition in case its useful:
"DO–GOODER meaning: someone whose desire and effort to help people (such as poor people) is regarded as wrong, annoying, useless, etc."
 
Yes punitive, arrogant people whose hobby is to police the world around them, because hey look at that, someone needs more stress added to their trouble.
 
grahamg said:
I've not explained myself well here, so apologies for this failing once again.

The real point about someone who should be described as a "do gooder", is that whatever they think they're achieving they end up "doing more harm than good".

Hence there is all the difference in the world between that kind of " do holder", and what you'd hope is the attitude most folks in the world take, of wishing to do more good than harm, and wanting to help other people along the way, (obviously there are many great people who have done incredible work helping others in so many ways).

So no, I'm not in any way trying to impugn you, and as stated in the OP I'm sure there are occasions when I slip into the trap of thinking I'm doing good and failing just by doing so, (or considering I know what's best for everyone else).
Click to expand...
So you believe dogooders do more harm than good? What about Santa Claus, and just after his Christmas run too. A lump of coal for you next year. :ROFLMAO:
 
Judycat said:
Yes punitive, arrogant people whose hobby is to police the world around them, because hey look at that, someone needs more stress added to their trouble.
Click to expand...
I am not sure these are do-gooders, just a**holes... Graham's definition says:
grahamg said:
someone whose desire and effort to help people...
Click to expand...
Punitive or arrogant people are not trying to help others, just feed their own egos or something...
 
I think you missed or misinterpreted the group. None can be "Perfectly Safe" is correct, but they're helping them deal with grief of losing a child.

They may be trying to prevent "Instances" like toddlers falling out of windows, running into the street, of course, I'd have to see the show to fully understand. But there's "Grief Groups" who gather to talk about this tragedy.

If true they're trying to "Force" something of a minor issue, then I can agree. But like having you kid in the backseat in case of accident is laudable. Even if I think your toddler is a unholy terror.
 
Disgustedman said:
I think you missed or misinterpreted the group. None can be "Perfectly Safe" is correct, but they're helping them deal with grief of losing a child.
They may be trying to prevent "Instances" like toddlers falling out of windows, running into the street, of course, I'd have to see the show to fully understand. But there's "Grief Groups" who gather to talk about this tragedy.
If true they're trying to "Force" something of a minor issue, then I can agree. But like having you kid in the backseat in case of accident is laudable. Even if I think your toddler is a unholy terror.
Click to expand...
I've no problem with putting toddlers in seats at the back of the car, (even though I accept it needed pressure from those in authority to convince people to take this sensible measure).
However "conkers" not being permitted, or not being permitted in school, (you know what the game of conkers is don't you?), this is a different matter! :)
 
Trish said:

My brother was a chamption conker player! :)
Click to expand...
I couldn't quite tell but something seemed to hit the boy shown in the video, being hit in the face by something flying off of the chestnut he was hitting. Might not be a bad idea to wear goggles while one plays, I think that's reasonable. But also, heating up a sharp spike with a lighter so as to more easily poke it through a chestnut and hopefully not also into a child's hand ... I think that there might be a few safety concerns there were it my child wanting to play. In the US lawn darts used to be a fun activity but some "do-gooders" thought they were a bit too dangerous and the were outlawed as well. Maybe let people pursue such games when they're of an age to know the risk and assume the responsibility that comes with it?

I know of a few people drowning from swimming in quarries that were clearly marked, DANGER NO SWIMMING! Then some do gooders got the quarry owners to build barriers around the edge and fewer swimmers died. It was safer. There must be at least one child, maybe more, who was injured by the game. In the conkers example, I think it waws for the best to ban the game, at least for children. Adults play all that you care to.

As for me, I try to do gooder each day than I was able to do the day before.
 
Farrah Nuff said:
I couldn't quite tell but something seemed to hit the boy shown in the video, being hit in the face by something flying off of the chestnut he was hitting. Might not be a bad idea to wear goggles while one plays, I think that's reasonable. But also, heating up a sharp spike with a lighter so as to more easily poke it through a chestnut and hopefully not also into a child's hand ... I think that there might be a few safety concerns there were it my child wanting to play. In the US lawn darts used to be a fun activity but some "do-gooders" thought they were a bit too dangerous and the were outlawed as well. Maybe let people pursue such games when they're of an age to know the risk and assume the responsibility that comes with it?

I know of a few people drowning from swimming in quarries that were clearly marked, DANGER NO SWIMMING! Then some do gooders got the quarry owners to build barriers around the edge and fewer swimmers died. It was safer. There must be at least one child, maybe more, who was injured by the game. In the conkers example, I think it waws for the best to ban the game, at least for children. Adults play all that you care to.

As for me, I try to do gooder each day than I was able to do the day before.
Click to expand...
So you are the very person we're looking for in terms of banning conker fights!!!
You've managed to conflate playing conkers with other activities any sane person would wish to see banned, or severely restricted, (characteristic of "do gooders" the world over that one!). :(

Never mind, never mind, whilst you've convinced yourself wrapping children up in cotton wool is the way the world should go, they will continue to demonstrate the life they've been left with causes them all kinds of troubles psychologically, but so long as you feel good about yourself that's all that matters, (I'm being deliberately provocative here for dramatic effect, but whilst I'm going over the top I'm convinced anyone worrying about conkers is doing that to a far greater degree, "shame on you"!).
 
Trish said:
My brother was a champion conker player! :)
Click to expand...
I am unbelievably delighted to hear about your brothers great success, and what a wonderfully balanced childhood you both had, (how refreshing).
I never won any competitions, even though one conker I'd baked a bit lasted a long time in battles with my brother.

My father revealed how he'd cheated as a boy to beat all his mates, (would you believe it he'd attached a steel nut to the other end of the string, kept it hidden obviously while the other player had their go, then when he swung the but he'd do so in a way concealing it in his hand both before and after when grabbing it behind his back).

Those were the days hey, softies would just have to keep out of the way! :)
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top