Do-Gooder

[hc4361]

Why is 'a do-gooder' a derogative term? Surely it is better to be a do-gooder than a 'do-badder' or a 'do-nothing'?

I'm sorry to refer to the Saville case again, but if all those who now claim they knew what he was up to did the right thing and reported him, Saville might have been in court in his lifetime.

If you knew your neighbour or acquaintance was breaking the law by hitting their children a bit too hard; or even driving a car without insurance (the consequence being that if he maimed somebody the victim would get a much lower payout than if he had been insured) would you report him, or deride the person that did for being a 'do-gooder'?

I just don't get the attitude.

[petal54]

it's that 'casting the 1st stone'thing,not always easy to do in those circumstances

[hc4361]

Easy to cast the first stone when castigating others for doing nothing, though, don't you think?

[joko]

you have answered your own question really - it is used mainly by wrongdoers who are angry at being caught. out ... and somehow feel that labelling the person responsible and referring to their apparent good deed in a negative way somehow lessens their own wrongdoing.

pathetic really

its a bit like people who are up in arms and angry because they're flashed by a speed camera... as though it somehow deflects the fact that had they not been breaking the law and speeding it wouldnt have happened...

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I'd probably do nothing if I'm honest for fear of retribution, but I wouldn't castigate the person who was braver than me and did it though.

[FredPuli43]

"Do-gooder" is a derogatory term because it was devised as such, to suggest a person who interferes when not needed and with adverse results, whilst being smugly satisfied that they are doing the right thing. The polite term, among others, for a benevolent person who does help, is benefactor, philanthropist, or good Samaritan..

Under French law, a bystander who does nothing to save someone when able to do so is liable and may be prosecuted. You may feel that this principle should be introduced into English law. We don't even have a general principle that a witness to a crime is under a legal obligation to report it or take any action at all.

[baza]

Isn't there a saying :- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing!

[hc4361]

Yes, there is, baza.


Fred, I'm aware of the French law but there is something tickling my memory - did somebody get charged in the UK in the past couple of years for failing to act when they watched somebody drowning?

[modeller]

It would appear there are many definitions of " Do-Gooder ".

I always felt it applied to those who defend and help the undeserving.
The druggie, the drunk, the lazy, the fectless , the criminal etc. All of whom get massive amounts of state and charitable aid.

It's got nothing to do with not reporting a crime .

I doubt if those who did not report what they knew about Savile were
Do-Gooders .

On the other hand some D,Gs go to extreme and would open our prisons and give murderers a slap on the wrist.

[NOX]

For me it depends and I think it does with all people on what 'crime' is being committed and how that crime fits your own personal view of right or wrong. Would I inform the police or deal with someone abusing a child, elderly or otherwise vulnerable person- yes every time, without exception. Would I report someone running a business from home, smoking in their works van or who downloaded muysic from the internet, of course not. this is because I personally feel that those sort of things are not sufficiently important to warrant anyone else getting involved- and to report such a thing I would consider someone a ' do-gooder'. Now that makes me guilty of considering my opinions as being better than the letter of the law, which is obviously true of everyone, we all have opinions one way or the other, not many people have never committed a crime themselves, even if it's only keeping the pen they accidentally took from work, so to me most ' do gooders' who report trivial misdemeanors are hypocrites whereas someone reporting child abuse is absolutely doing the right thing.

[chaptazbru]

^ well put.

[naomi24]

Fred, in his first paragraph, has it right.

[seadogg]

Wasn't it originally applied to those who did "good" acts in an ostentatious way?

[joko]

"to suggest a person who interferes when not needed and with adverse results"

but its also used when it clearly is needed, when the person absolutely should be reported - and the adverse results are only to the person caught.... thats the problem with it.

the people who dish out the label have often committed quite a serious crime and are just angry at being caught.