Which type of good deed is of more value?

Question

Is it of more value to do a good deed toward a large but distant problem (global warming, war, poverty) where the harm is great but your chance of making a notable impact is small, or to apply against a smaller need closer to yourself (mentor to a child, plate of food to an elder neighbor) that would have a larger impact on a smaller scale problem. If you choose to do both, how do you decide where to use your limited resources of money and time?

Answer 1

In my opinion, you should work your way helping those closer to you, and then tackling the bigger problems. This way, you learn how to make efficient and worthy actions at short-term or less serious problems first, where you won't need to, in many cases, put a such a great commitment to your goals as you would when you will be in service of solving (or just giving a hand at solving) larger problems, such as global warming.

Answer 2

I doubt that the situation of having to chose between these two types of good deeds would occur and we rely on the state to provided the services to the elderly and educate our children. These causes are ultimately both noble and it is impossible to assign a value to either. If I had to choose between making a small impact on averting major crisis and helping one person a great deal I would try and avert the major crisis. If you consider the example of global warming and the wider implications of the end of civilisation as we know it the ultimate exodus and territorial wars that will occur then any small impact which we can make towards helping that has to have a priority above all else. Whilst I may be naive in thinking that I will be able to impact on such a major issue I would be unwilling to accept defeat at a point when the ability to change can still avert a self inflicted Armageddon.

Answer 3

I think they may be of equal value. Cause' the help on a larger scale problem is like "one drop in the bucket", and without doing that we would never get major problems fixed at all.

And we have fixed major problems one person at a time, before, when we finally all woke up and realized what was going down at that we had to fix it.

Which is why we have a world today that is free of those problems. If nobody bothered just because they're contribution seemed little to them, we wouldn't even be able to elect a President.

But it's doing things for the person down the street, or the neighbor, that is most what leaves us with that "all round really good feeling", and that deed spreads throughout the community, too, sometimes.

And even the world. Guess we fix the world one person at a time.

Answer 4

While turning the focus of our deeds toward the greater good is a noble cause, due to the fact that more people are potentially impacted, we mustn't forget that everything is connected and even the smallest of deeds could bear an incredible impact. You could end up giving a dollar to someone on the street today who had all but given up hope and that person, inspired by your humanity, could go on to finding the cure for cancer. The point is, no deed is ever small in the grand scale of things because there's no way to determine the impact your actions will have.

Answer 5

Your question assumes that global warming, war or poverty can be affected by a single individual. Even if it can be chances are you will never know for sure but if you do something at the micro level you might even be able to observe firsthand, the outcome of your "good deed" .
I for one favor the larger impact on the smaller scale and just continue the same efforts and the scale will grow.

Answer 6

You can have a large impact on a smaller scale problem and have a 0 impact on a large scale problem. Don't make the larger problem worse but help those closer to you first. You are at the centre, to reach the border you must go through that which is closer before that which is further.

Answer 7

I'd ignore the little problems and go for the throat of the big ones.
You assume you can make an impact on the small stuff and not much of an impact on the big stuff, but I disagree.

Idealists are needed everywhere. Without them, none of the larger problems of the world would ever be tackled. The cry of
'but I'm only one man, what can I do?' sounds rather Homer Simpsonesque to me. Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa and Mandela all faced detractors in their time. I'm not saying I'll ever reach those heights, but one of my ilk may eventually come up the middle, and my efforts may not be totally in vain (It's all in the journey anyway).

Peace

Answer 8

it is good to think globally on issues, but it is impossible for one man to change the world, unless he is a political figure that has the personality-power to change the world. In that case, it is done through small means. Look at Martin Luther King or Ghandi, they started out small and their reputation mattered to people, so much that their voice was capable of changing the world. In all intense purposes, when people know that you are out to protect values and share awareness with people, they will always see you as a good thing.

Answer 9

That's easy.
I do what's in front of my nose and ignore the rest.
As for global warming, war and poverty, I do my part by conserving energy, living in peace and earning my living. I help the person I meet as it happens, in the moment.
Remote contributions support organizations who usually either have political associations or are governed by them, and thus any contribution by an individual engenders a vast loss of useable end-product for the recipients or even contributes to the problem.

Answer 10

The larger problem takes time and lots of tiny inputs from many people. Just do what you can on that. The really best deed is to help another where they are at.