‘DOING GOOD’
CAERS Substack Article #86
Few of us would disagree that it is better to do ‘good’ than to do ‘bad’. So, it is somewhat odd that referring to someone as a ‘do-gooder’ is rather derogatory. Why is that? How does it relate to ‘virtue signalling’?
There may be several issues in play here. Is the action being performed actually beneficial for the receiver? Who decides what constitutes ‘good’ ---the giver or the receiver, and on what grounds? Is the primary goal of the action in question to provide good to the benefactor, or to make the provider look good? In other words, what is the level of sincerity in the transaction? Are there any hidden agendas or secondary gains that complicate the situation?
We have the capability to both promote and to deceive, and we can do them simultaneously. That extends to self-promotion and self-deception; every one of us has the potential to be masters of both. These behaviours likely arise from the age-old coping mechanisms of denial and avoidance; we try to make the world seem the way we want it to be, even if it means fudging things a little (or a lot).
In all fairness, knowing what is the ‘right’ thing to do, the good, can be difficult to figure out. Is it good to give our loose change to the beggar on the city streets who asks for money to buy a hot meal when we know that the homeless shelter within walking distance offers nutritious meals multiple times daily for free? It is possible, maybe even likely, that our alms will go to the purchase of licit or illicit mind-altering substances—is it good to do offer them regardless?
Sometimes sorting out whether an action is good requires us to dig more deeply than our reflex emotions might suggest. We don’t want to seem uncaring, unfeeling or worst of all, superior and judgmental, of the street person, for example. We could express our concern for them and direct them to the free meal at the shelter, or ask if there is some way to help other than giving them money. But sometimes it is simply easier to give them a few coins instead. Or say that we are sorry but we don’t have any cash to give, when in fact we do have cash and we are not sorry that we are not going to share it.
When we face moral dilemmas, it can be easier to simply spout flippant and trite platitudes and clichés to ease our moral angst. Doing the right thing often necessitates more profound reflection if we want to avoid the banal tropes and bromides that have the potential to make things worse.
Tribal image can be very important to a species as social as we are; few of us want to suffer public disgrace and become pariahs. However, I believe that each of us has a moral compass and at some level we feel compelled to ask the difficult questions that sometimes have counterintuitive or even uncomfortable answers. That can generate a disturbing moral distress because it forces us to examine not just how to define what is good, but also the motivation behind our action. What is the balance between acting for the benefit of others versus acting for our own self-promotion?
Most of us want to be perceived as good people, and even more importantly, most of us want to see ourselves that way as well. However, there are times when we would rather be right, or appear to be right, than be good. It is not uncommon for those in positions of power or influence to largely ignore whether their decisions do good or not. Closing a factory may seem like the ‘right’ financial thing to do and the question of whether it is doing good may never enter into the equation. In medicine we must tell the truth to a patient, but we must do so in a compassionate fashion, one that recognizes that simply being right about the diagnosis is not enough; our ultimate goal is to do good. We want to be humane and avoid what is referred to as ‘punitive disclosure’. How often in relationships are we more interested in winning an argument than focusing on the suffering of another?
The term ‘virtue signalling’ is often used these days. It likely has many interpretations, but the gist is that people engage in speech and actions that seem praiseworthy (because they appear to promote good) but in fact are rather shallow and trivial, and in so doing they avoid, deny or minimize truly meritorious speech or action. By analogy, virtue signalling activity seems to focus on a hangnail while ignoring the fact that the leg is almost falling off. The primary goal is to emphasize the virtue of the provider, rather than effecting any really useful change that promotes the good. This is commonly done when those doing the signalling want to appear superior to an opponent, a childish game of one-upmanship of public personas.
Has the question, ‘What is good?’, been an important one during the pandemic? Have you been satisfied with the rhetoric, the answers and the policies that have resulted? Have you observed any evidence of virtue signalling?
Doing good is often harder to do than we realize. It requires courage, introspection, open- mindedness, transparency, truth-telling, dedication and humility, among others. In times of distress, especially novel ones like the pandemic, it can be exceptionally challenging. It is in such circumstances that we need ‘all hands on deck’ in order to find not just the best definition of the good, but also the moral strength to hold one another accountable to pursue it in earnest.
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator