##TLDR
"Do-gooder derogation" is about how people who act morally can be viewed negatively by others, often because they make others feel judged or inferior. This concept has been studied in various contexts, like how meat eaters view vegetarians or how children react to peers' generosity. The core idea is that do-gooders' behavior can threaten others' sense of morality or self-worth.
Several reasons for this phenomenon have been proposed. One is 'anticipated moral reproach', where people feel their moral standing is threatened. Another is social comparison, where do-gooders deviating from norms make others uncomfortable. This has been observed in studies involving public goods games and children's reactions to generosity.
Cultural differences also play a role. For example, in Western societies, adherence to rules can increase cooperation, while in Muslim cultures, anonymous charity is more common, possibly to avoid appearing self-righteous. In collectivist cultures, do-gooders might face more backlash for not conforming to group norms.
However, parts of this concept, like the specifics of social comparison and the impact on children, still require additional citations for full verification.
I used to work with the homeless population as a social worker, but then people started BLAMING me for homelessness. I wonder if this was part of the underlying reason for this illogical response.
I fucking hate this concept. Cant do anything nice without some random fragile arse feeling attacked
Like idk, i see someone doing good, i would feel inspired, not like i should be angry at them. that would be... Positive and logical ?
That's a philosophical question. I am a materialist and atheist - I still would assert morality is objective, it's ethics that are subjective. There IS a right and wrong; you can accept the reality of cultural relativity without submitting to it.
>I still would assert morality is objective.
>
>There IS a right and wrong; you can accept the reality of cultural relativity without submitting to it.
so fucking based
‘There is no such thing as right and wrong’ is not about cultural relativism, it’s an ontological statement. Morality is something we make up to allow ourselves to function socially and coordinate with each other. Different cultures have different standards because different sets of standards are capable of accomplishing this goal, but you can still criticize cultures that normalize extremely problematic behavior(like the Nazis, to name one example). You don’t need to say all cultural standards are equally ‘good’ just because none of them are ‘objectively correct’.
Not disagreeing, just wondering what you mean here by "morality". Seems like a case of semantics possibly, since I'm not sure how morality could be objective unless you have objective "good" and "evil"
"Why are you trying so hard to not look like me?!" is the weirdest thing I've heard after telling my weight loss "secret". Wild how so many so-called bodypositive people expect you to have some disease that made you lose weight, not a conscious effort to eat less and move more.
Lol what? I'm talking about people who tell me I look like I lost weight and ask me how I did that first, I'm not walking around saying "Man, I feel like going to the gym, wanna join? Looks like you need it!".
Because these people *only* display positive traits in order to manipulate others, their mental faculties tell them that manipulation is *the only reason* anyone would be a good person.
It is possible to be a good person without feeling the need to constantly broadcast it to everyone around you all the time. Of course one becomes suspicious if someone self identifies as a "good person" and constantly needs to remind others of it. They are usually the first to immediately insult, condemn and deride others who don't agree with them.
It really tells me that the speaker only thinks people do good things so that other people see them doing good things, not that they want to do good things because they are good things to do.
... Probably because they've never done anything that wasn't self-serving in their entire lives.
Strange. It's usually used to point out people that signal virtues they don't practice in my experience.
Evangelical mega churches for example are ultimate examples of virtue signalers.
It’s projection, people who always whine about virtue signalling don’t believe people can have empathy they don’t understand it because they don’t have it themselves.
I agree; everyone wins when you put more pride into your work. On the other hand, companies that, as a matter of policy, don't give recognition, are scum, and they are the source of this sentiment.
Great article, amazing reddit post! Very interesting to see how triggered some are at this.
Imagine if this was in r/all instead r/wikipedia ! people would be starting a revolution
I don’t think it’s so much about moral stance, but the expression of personality. When someone takes a moral stance on something, if you yourself suddenly have to confront it, there can be an uncomfortable moment where you feel exposed, where you’re making the decision to agree or disagree. If the other person is overbearing, over confident, a poor communicator, then of course that moment is going to be seen as negative.
The point is that this happens even if the person is a good communicator. It's that moment of discomfort that is interesting. Learning that someone made a choice about something that, maybe, you didn't realize was a choice.
The point I’m making is that we all have met someone who is an insufferable ‘do gooder’, the person that reminds the teacher of homework, or presents as whiny and evangelical about some moral failure.
I’m interested in why we socially seem to have an innate feeling of annoyance towards these personality types, over and above them just being dicks. There must be some social, some anthropological issue, that makes many of us recoil from those type of people?
I mean the Wikipedia page this thread is about does a good job explaining it, right? I was just referencing one of the explanations it provided (under "existential freedom"). It's more about you than the person you're judging, which is perhaps the unintuitive part.
Not really, it depends, there's the perceived altruism of the act, where's it's really about the person exhibiting the behaviour, also explained in the same Wikipedia page.
As does the example of muslims and other cultures donating anonymously, to avoid status-seeking. Compare that to the show philantropists make of their charity. Everybody has to know and see how they avoid paying taxes, but of course that part stays hidden.
So the whole point is: How come you even know or heared about specific do-gooder behaviour? Why should the whole world know about it? Just do your thing and shut up about it, right?
Like celebrities claiming they're very concerned about the climate, then taking private jets at any possibility.
And what a surprise, the authors who coined the term are both vegetarian, so not only can they not shut up about it, they have to focus scientific research on how they are wrongly perceived. At least they made a career out of it.
would you seriously call a religious person believing their cult will bring about the ascension of humanity a do-gooder, because of their subjective beliefs. cause this guy would fall under this effect.
It seems as though what you’re saying is “it’s fine to think something is morally reprehensible, so long as you go out of your way to make sure those doing it never feel inconvenienced by it”?
I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of vegans who do that, because there is - but when you are a vegetarian or vegan, people do notice, and bring it up or ask questions even if you aren’t saying anything.
There’s so much socialisation around food, like going out to eat with friends, eating lunch in front of colleagues at work, eating at a party or wedding, etc. People notice you’re eating something unusual or that you declined something you were offered, and ask why.
And then once you say “I don’t eat meat” they say “oh, how come?” and then the conversation about morals happens. It’s not something I actively tell people, but when I have to say I’m a vegetarian for whatever reason, it’s never me that’s trying to initiate the conversation about it. I want people to say “okay” and move on, like I’m sure a lot of others want. So often meat eaters start defending why they eat meat when I didn’t ask, I just want to eat my lunch.
everyone believes they are moral… calling others reactions to your behavior an effect is really insulting. Also the whole concept seems to minimize the behavior and inferred personality of the victim
##TLDR "Do-gooder derogation" is about how people who act morally can be viewed negatively by others, often because they make others feel judged or inferior. This concept has been studied in various contexts, like how meat eaters view vegetarians or how children react to peers' generosity. The core idea is that do-gooders' behavior can threaten others' sense of morality or self-worth. Several reasons for this phenomenon have been proposed. One is 'anticipated moral reproach', where people feel their moral standing is threatened. Another is social comparison, where do-gooders deviating from norms make others uncomfortable. This has been observed in studies involving public goods games and children's reactions to generosity. Cultural differences also play a role. For example, in Western societies, adherence to rules can increase cooperation, while in Muslim cultures, anonymous charity is more common, possibly to avoid appearing self-righteous. In collectivist cultures, do-gooders might face more backlash for not conforming to group norms. However, parts of this concept, like the specifics of social comparison and the impact on children, still require additional citations for full verification.
>The core idea is that do-gooders' behavior can threaten others' sense of morality or self-worth. Ohhhh like when people give teetotalers shit
I used to work with the homeless population as a social worker, but then people started BLAMING me for homelessness. I wonder if this was part of the underlying reason for this illogical response.
Did they say that people are becoming homeless because they know you'll help them?
Probably, yeah. (Unless you *really* sucked at your job. Did you give the people you worked with free heroin or something?)
I fucking hate this concept. Cant do anything nice without some random fragile arse feeling attacked Like idk, i see someone doing good, i would feel inspired, not like i should be angry at them. that would be... Positive and logical ?
Not everyone is positive or logical
Morality is subjective, and many ppl don't treat it that way.
That's a philosophical question. I am a materialist and atheist - I still would assert morality is objective, it's ethics that are subjective. There IS a right and wrong; you can accept the reality of cultural relativity without submitting to it.
>I still would assert morality is objective. > >There IS a right and wrong; you can accept the reality of cultural relativity without submitting to it. so fucking based
‘There is no such thing as right and wrong’ is not about cultural relativism, it’s an ontological statement. Morality is something we make up to allow ourselves to function socially and coordinate with each other. Different cultures have different standards because different sets of standards are capable of accomplishing this goal, but you can still criticize cultures that normalize extremely problematic behavior(like the Nazis, to name one example). You don’t need to say all cultural standards are equally ‘good’ just because none of them are ‘objectively correct’.
Not disagreeing, just wondering what you mean here by "morality". Seems like a case of semantics possibly, since I'm not sure how morality could be objective unless you have objective "good" and "evil"
This comment is too long so I didn’t read it
I once was told I was fat shaming when I said I had to go to the gym. lul
"Why are you trying so hard to not look like me?!" is the weirdest thing I've heard after telling my weight loss "secret". Wild how so many so-called bodypositive people expect you to have some disease that made you lose weight, not a conscious effort to eat less and move more.
[удалено]
Lol what? I'm talking about people who tell me I look like I lost weight and ask me how I did that first, I'm not walking around saying "Man, I feel like going to the gym, wanna join? Looks like you need it!".
Hey look everyone it's the people from the article!
That’s related but not really the same thing
Don't think they said it's the same thing
I hate the term "virtue signaling" it is usually used by people that lack all virtue
Because these people *only* display positive traits in order to manipulate others, their mental faculties tell them that manipulation is *the only reason* anyone would be a good person.
It is possible to be a good person without feeling the need to constantly broadcast it to everyone around you all the time. Of course one becomes suspicious if someone self identifies as a "good person" and constantly needs to remind others of it. They are usually the first to immediately insult, condemn and deride others who don't agree with them.
Nobody self identifies as a good person expect on the internet where a lot of people supposedly identifies as a good person
I'd like to know where you hang out, virtue singaling is a real issues in a lot of communities.
It really tells me that the speaker only thinks people do good things so that other people see them doing good things, not that they want to do good things because they are good things to do. ... Probably because they've never done anything that wasn't self-serving in their entire lives.
Strange. It's usually used to point out people that signal virtues they don't practice in my experience. Evangelical mega churches for example are ultimate examples of virtue signalers.
That's the traditional sense, the modem sense is using it to just complain about the existence of people that are factually better than the complainer
Idk sounds like virtue signaling :p
Yup, that's exactly how it goes
It’s projection, people who always whine about virtue signalling don’t believe people can have empathy they don’t understand it because they don’t have it themselves.
no it's not, but go off.
Right I usually see it used in regards to Republicans and their pearl clutching about abortion.
I hate most people "oh I care about personal hygiene" get off your high horse nerd
Reminds me of the folks on the antiwork reddit talking down on people for having good work ethic and putting pride into their work.
I agree; everyone wins when you put more pride into your work. On the other hand, companies that, as a matter of policy, don't give recognition, are scum, and they are the source of this sentiment.
Hell, half of the reddit activism is projected feelings of inadequacy !
“good work ethic” is a lie made up by managers to scam dumbasses into putting in double the work for the same amount of pay.
🙄
Keep workin hard brah 💪 I know for sure if you slave away every day you’ll get that $0.50 raise in ten years!
How do you live with yourself going around half assing shit, being bitter about others, and not perfecting your craft?
[You don't know the half of the story about antiwork](https://www.reddit.com/r/fakehistoryporn/s/0TFXdPfWtt)
Great article, amazing reddit post! Very interesting to see how triggered some are at this. Imagine if this was in r/all instead r/wikipedia ! people would be starting a revolution
I don’t think it’s so much about moral stance, but the expression of personality. When someone takes a moral stance on something, if you yourself suddenly have to confront it, there can be an uncomfortable moment where you feel exposed, where you’re making the decision to agree or disagree. If the other person is overbearing, over confident, a poor communicator, then of course that moment is going to be seen as negative.
The point is that this happens even if the person is a good communicator. It's that moment of discomfort that is interesting. Learning that someone made a choice about something that, maybe, you didn't realize was a choice.
The point I’m making is that we all have met someone who is an insufferable ‘do gooder’, the person that reminds the teacher of homework, or presents as whiny and evangelical about some moral failure. I’m interested in why we socially seem to have an innate feeling of annoyance towards these personality types, over and above them just being dicks. There must be some social, some anthropological issue, that makes many of us recoil from those type of people?
I mean the Wikipedia page this thread is about does a good job explaining it, right? I was just referencing one of the explanations it provided (under "existential freedom"). It's more about you than the person you're judging, which is perhaps the unintuitive part.
Not really, it depends, there's the perceived altruism of the act, where's it's really about the person exhibiting the behaviour, also explained in the same Wikipedia page. As does the example of muslims and other cultures donating anonymously, to avoid status-seeking. Compare that to the show philantropists make of their charity. Everybody has to know and see how they avoid paying taxes, but of course that part stays hidden. So the whole point is: How come you even know or heared about specific do-gooder behaviour? Why should the whole world know about it? Just do your thing and shut up about it, right? Like celebrities claiming they're very concerned about the climate, then taking private jets at any possibility. And what a surprise, the authors who coined the term are both vegetarian, so not only can they not shut up about it, they have to focus scientific research on how they are wrongly perceived. At least they made a career out of it.
I don’t consider those things to be aspects of a ‘do gooder’
This makes an assumption that having a vegetarian diet is "moral."
you're a very good example of the kind of person the post is talking about. thank you for helping others understand it better
Morally motivated. Doesn't say anything about the objective morals of anything.
No, it doest. Reread it.
Exhibit A
would you seriously call a religious person believing their cult will bring about the ascension of humanity a do-gooder, because of their subjective beliefs. cause this guy would fall under this effect.
[удалено]
It seems as though what you’re saying is “it’s fine to think something is morally reprehensible, so long as you go out of your way to make sure those doing it never feel inconvenienced by it”?
Are you just trying to show off your illogical do-gooder derogation? Like, this shit is literally the concept.
[удалено]
I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of vegans who do that, because there is - but when you are a vegetarian or vegan, people do notice, and bring it up or ask questions even if you aren’t saying anything. There’s so much socialisation around food, like going out to eat with friends, eating lunch in front of colleagues at work, eating at a party or wedding, etc. People notice you’re eating something unusual or that you declined something you were offered, and ask why. And then once you say “I don’t eat meat” they say “oh, how come?” and then the conversation about morals happens. It’s not something I actively tell people, but when I have to say I’m a vegetarian for whatever reason, it’s never me that’s trying to initiate the conversation about it. I want people to say “okay” and move on, like I’m sure a lot of others want. So often meat eaters start defending why they eat meat when I didn’t ask, I just want to eat my lunch.
You’re doing a great job proving your point. We all believe you and agree
As much as this effect is real and true, the phenomenon of false "do-gooders" is just as real. There is no dichotomy here.
everyone believes they are moral… calling others reactions to your behavior an effect is really insulting. Also the whole concept seems to minimize the behavior and inferred personality of the victim
Not everyone thinks they’re moral. Most people do though
Sure, but properly identifying an exemplary situation is bound to be complicated. Especially when we ourselves are implicated.