Does it really matter why people do good deeds?

Not sure about those villages. thats a shame but in some areas of the USA I have lived in. believers as well as non belivers are welcome. i know some great christian communities really acting christ like.

 

I think that in the end, there is no separation between intention and action/result. So yes, it does. Not sure for what it matters though.

 

I totally agree on both points!! well put!

 

Yeah. It sounds good here too.

 

Well yeah, look at all that money going in aid to help people in countries whose governments then just don't give it out anyway. There's plenty of people giving to charities for all the wrong reasons and at best doing nothing, at worst making the problem worse.

 

Damned imperfect world. whats one to do.

 

Meh. It's not about being perfect. I think that's what messes people up. They try to do one all-purpose good deed that'll make everything right, and when it doesn't, we get cynical or apathetic. Really, we just need to be content with doing what we can.

 

That sounds like more of a reason to accept the good deeds, even if they aren't entirely vitreous.

 

Is that a valid reason to stop trying to help?

 

Not at all. But it's a valid reason to encourage people to think a bit before they throw their money away. People who are just trying to do good deeds for the feelgood factor tend to be the ones pissing their efforts up the wall because they didn't look at who really needed it. Someone who just lives conscientiously generally has a better impact than someone who does one big "good deed" a month or whatever.

 

Agreed.

 

This leads me to ask the simple question.

Does the end justify the means?

Or do the means affect the final outcome?

 

Simple Answer, NO.

The end does not always justify the means. Take the war in Iraq as an example. Yes, Saddam was removed, and maybe the people of Iraq will enjoy a stable democracy at some point in the future, but how was this acheived?

By killing thousands upon thousands of those supposedly being liberated. Obviously, the means did affect the outcome for those people and their relatives.

 

But if you input the numbers of those killed, tortured, living in fear, put in prison, raped and such while under Saddam's ruling do th number now justify. I dont know these numbers so I can not say but rule of thumb is always if there is even 1 life spared over what is lost, its acceptable.

 

So if I were starving and people offered to give me food in exchange for worshiping their idol and throwing away my own belief system, is that a "good deed" or exploitation?

I think the motive matters if you demand something in exchange for the help...desperate people are easily taken advantage of.

 

In the context you've listed, no it doesn't matter. They're doing it to feel better about themselves, which is why most people donate, IMO.

It's the people who do it expecting good things to come their way as a result that I have a problem with. Those people should not be doing it at all because when good things do not come their way they will toss their hands up and quit anyway. They will also use their negative experience to try to teach others that charity/volunteer work is meaningless. The negative effect of these reward seekers outweighs the help they provide.

 

i agree. people are people.

 

if it's not forced, then it's not a throwing away of your beliefs. it's giving up on something that wasn't working for you anymore. due to a lot of backlash on the rice christians problem, there are a lot of churches that no longer proseletyze like they used to. it's not doing anyone any good at all, even from a christian persective, if they're just pretending belief to get some food.