"Let me help you" - said the monkey, putting the fish up a tree.
The premise of acting on a good intention is a recurring theme in the world of philosophers and theologians. The white, Judaeo-christian dogma is still thriving in our everyday world. Although the church would send missionaries to save indigenous people from their beliefs, it is now marketing experts and celebrities that send material goods to save inhabitants of "third-world" countries from their living conditions.
What I want to discuss today is the impacts of these "good intentions" on yourself and the world, as well as ways in which they could be controlled to actually benefit humanity as a whole.
First, take a look at a classic example of helping others at work.
TOMS shoes is a company that sells summer shoes you can simply slip on. They're nice and the company even promised to donate one pair to a person in need for every pair that is purchased. This seems nice and I would feel good if I wore a pair of shoes that helped someone in need at the same time. The problem with this mentality is that it does not consider anything else other than the temporary satisfaction of the ego and the temporary aid it brings to a poor shoeless person. It does not take note of any long-term consequences such as the rupture it can bring to local shoe-markets, which in turn worsens already fragile social-economic conditions.
Here's a vox article on the subject: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/23/9025975/toms-shoes-poverty-giving
They explain well, although better sources can be found through a simple search.
What we saw at work here is the savior-complex. It's the conviction that we know what is best for others.
Another way it can work is in a simple political discussion. A friend came to me once, complaining that the weight-lifting, beer-chugging, football-watching douchebags were the cause for all the harm in the world. He said that they were ignorant and that if they knew what was truly important, they wouldn't act as to perpetuate our current political conditions.
When he approached strangers while representing his party, he would explain to them "how things work" in a way that would reflect that he "knew more" than others. Not only is this demeaning to these strangers who have formed their own thoughts and rationalizations, but it is also completely false to think that you have a better understanding of what would be good for others. A nihilist would probably even go to say that you can't even know what is best for yourself upon the idea that the person who is doing the "bettering" is your "un-bettered-self".
What is certain is that we can never rationally eliminate the possibility of being wrong...
-Nicolas
Part II coming out next week, please comment and/or subscribe if you enjoyed the topic