Helmut Melzer
Naïve and unworldly - This is how a good friend recently described the term "good man" in a heated debate about globalization and the economic crisis. He is not alone in this country. Especially in social networks, the term is often used - as what he says, among other things, according to Wikipedia: a hateful or contemptuous denigration of those who want to be good.
For that reason, 2011 was chosen Goodyear Unweighed of the Year. The reasoning: "With the term do-gooder, the ethical ideal of the 'good man' is taken in a malicious manner in order to slander dissenters on a flat rate and without regard to their arguments and to qualify them as naive."
But what about a society in which the term do-gooder has firmly anchored itself in this meaning? Apart from the question of what is good and bad for the individual, for me it is crystal clear: opportunists have found a word to justify themselves and their opinions and actions. In a discussion, it is usually clear: When the term good man falls, the opposite will no longer reasonable arguments.
Our society is divided in many ways - in wealth distribution, ecological issues, social issues. One thing is clear: without the do-gooders of the long history of humanity there would be no democracy, no suffrage, no human rights, no social benefits and no pension, no quality standards for food, no animal welfare ... The list is long.
Photo / Video: Option.
