Or is it? Doing something good for someone else without any expectation in return feels good. Science has proven that when we do good for someone, it is us, the giver, who is a major beneficiary of the deed because of the positive feeling associated with demonstrating kindness, empathy, and care. Yet, because we help someone and do good, is the mere act of a good deed necessarily the ideal?
This applies to people and organizations, specifically nonprofit organizations and those who deliver human services. If your work is to help, and you perform your work, does that imply you have done good? How well have you performed your task, delivered an outcome to the beneficiary, and enhanced the existing system in place to help. Could you be doing the task better? Is it more important that you serve many people versus serving people better? Are we serving those in greatest need?
When there are well equipped organizations and processes that address specific needs, and you choose to intervene because you believe you can do better, is that necessarily good?
We use the phrase ‘human kind’ for good reason – be kind to humans. To want to do good for others is to care. If our intent and consideration are to help those with the greatest need and deliver the best outcome, in a consistent manner, would we possibly choose alternate options of doing good, if our goal is to do good for all, as good as we can?
