Do you really worry about this kind of thing? Has something like any of the scenarios you describe above ever happened to you? Do 50% of the things you do lead disaster? How about 5%? 1%?

Open your heart. Do what it says. Live with the consequences.

IF 50% of your good intentions end up leading to bad results, you should consult a specialist to find out if you are in the wrong universe.

A more likely scenario is that many (say 60%) of your good acts end up accomplishing nothing -- nothing good, nothing bad. Is it worth continuing to do good. Yes.

Perhaps you need to improve your giving and good acts. Giving $100 to the Cancer Society might accomplish nothing. $100 to a cancer research laboratory might accomplish more. Preparing a good meal for 40 people in a homeless shelter might not house anybody, but it will leave 40 people well fed, and they will feel better about life.

Giving $25,000 to Harvard probably won't make much difference. They already have a huge endowment. Giving the same amount of money to a state college tuition scholarship would probably make a much larger difference.

True enough, good acts can go awry, but usually they don't.

A more likely scenario is that many (say 60%) of your good acts end up accomplishing nothing -- nothing good, nothing bad. Is it worth continuing to do good. Yes. — Bitter Crank

I'll agree to this.
If you were a carpenter and 60% of your work was being thrown away, you still get paid; Is your answer still yes? And if so, where does purpose come into the formula for the happiness of the human. And if most of our work is for naught, then is our purpose naught too?

Has something like any of the scenarios you describe above ever happened to you? Do 50% of the things you do lead disaster? How about 5%? 1%? — T Clark

Indeed, more than 5% But really 50% isn't too far off. Look at the number of relationships you've been in. Can anyone really say that 50% of their relationships have been for the better of everyone invloved? You weren't there to cause harm to others, you weren't there to yell, or belittle someone, even with good intentions, but it happened, and indeed we bear the consequences.
And this is a site for critical thinking, if you haven't thought of the efficiency of the fruits of your labor, then you might not be too great of a farmer.

If you were a carpenter and 60% of your work was being thrown away, you still get paid; — Frank Barroso

If that happens then there is no way you can be a carpenter. Just having a hammer does not qualify you as a carpenter, it is the quality of your work that does.

Get another job where you cannot screw up so much.

If you were a carpenter and 60% of your work was being thrown away, you still get paid; Is your answer still yes? And if so, where does purpose come into the formula for the happiness of the human. And if most of our work is for naught, then is our purpose naught too? — Frank Barroso

Carpenters, plumbers, communication satellite designers, dishwashers, etc. all provide work in exchange for wages. Chances are, if 60% of a carpenter's, plumber's, satellite designer's, and a dishwasher's work was rejected, you'd be out of a job at the end of the day.

Some jobs, like social work, psychiatry, teaching, etc. do not get great results much of the time, and we understand that psychiatrists, for instance, can not 'cure' schizophrenia. They can only "help" the schizophrenic -- but he doesn't stop being schizophrenic.

Your OP, and my response, was predicated on measuring 'good works', not job performance. Many good works fail for the same reason that psychiatry fails: the conditions that cause severe problems are just very difficult to 'cure'. A 45 year old man who dropped out of high school, is barely literate, has no sought after skills, is going to do poorly--no matter what. Doers of good deeds and county workers can help the guy, but they can not turn him into an affluent entrepreneur.

A chronic alcoholic and drug abuser will not do well in this world either -- and there is little that can be done to make him or her do well. The best we can do is limit the damage. That's not very satisfying, in terms of return on good works. But limiting the damage is very worthwhile. There is a housing program not far from where I live for "public inebriates". These are chronic alcoholics who simply can not stop drinking. The goal of the program is to provide clean, warm housing with supportive services, and the residents can continue to drink--they are just much, much less likely to die from exposure, lose extremities to frostbite, and so forth. Plus, their existence is more dignified. They are cared for.

There are some programs that do much better than 5%, 15%, 35%. even 65%. Feeding programs (meals on wheels, for instance) have high high rates of success -- that is, the meals get delivered 5 days a week, plus food for the weekend, at a fairly low cost. Public health immunization programs often reach 95% success rates.

But limiting the damage is very worthwhile. — Bitter Crank

And I agree.
Thank you for your insights.
I could drag the question further with a thought on all desire is suffering, but I might make a seperate thread with more clarification on that. That's more like "Is giving gifts to others wrong?"

A 45 year old man who dropped out of high school, is barely literate, has no sought after skills, is going to do poorly--no matter what. Doers of good deeds and county workers can help the guy, but they can not turn him into an affluent entrepreneur. — Bitter Crank

Though there have certainly been poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs >:O - it's to a large degree a matter of luck also.

Though there have certainly been poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs >:O - it's to a large degree a matter of luck also. — Agustino

Luck is incompatible with knowledge at an epistemic level and those poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs likely had pre-existing cognitive abilities that enabled them to adapt and learn with the incentive to improve their situation. It is not causally due to this phenomenon of luck, they knew that an opportunity presented itself and worked towards attaining it.

Luck is incompatible with knowledge at an epistemic level and those poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs likely had pre-existing cognitive abilities that enabled them to adapt and learn with the incentive to improve their situation. It is not causally due to this phenomenon of luck, they knew that an opportunity presented itself and worked towards attaining it. — TimeLine

That's not necessarily the case. My point is that "the gods", or "luck" or "fortune" or however you want to call it plays a much bigger role in success than is often attributed to it. The Ancients were well-aware of this - if someone was rich in Ancient Rome, they attributed it to Fortune, not to themselves. And that was correct.

Man cannot do anything without the blessings of God.

You can be the smartest, strongest, best prepared, most disciplined and still lose if luck isn't on your side. But on the other hand, if luck is on your side you can be the most despicable, weak, cowardly, least prepared and undisciplined and still succeed.

That's not necessarily the case. My point is that "the gods", or "luck" or "fortune" or however you want to call it plays a much bigger role in success than is often attributed to it. The Ancients were well-aware of this - if someone was rich in Ancient Rome, they attributed it to Fortune, not to themselves. And that was correct.

Man cannot do anything without the blessings of God.

You can be the smartest, strongest, best prepared, most disciplined and still lose if luck isn't on your side. But on the other hand, if luck is on your side you can be the most despicable, weak, cowardly, least prepared and undisciplined and still succeed. — Agustino

If there are blessings given to us by God it is that we are endowed with greater or lesser cognitive abilities. IQ tests that are non-cultural attempt to ascertain a person' actual intellectual capacity by measuring visual and spatial, non-verbal and numerical reasoning because it is our capacity to adapt quickly and effectively that enables us to learn. I know of high school drop-outs that are very smart but just don't yet have the skills to articulate it that an education can give them. A 45 year old man with no education does not necessarily lack intelligence; he may have grown up in an environment that culturally prefer employment over education and his disadvantage is constructed by his environment.

A person cannot suddenly become an entrepreneur but they have the skills to be one already. "Luck" is limited to random events like escaping death or having the moment where an opportunity presents itself but it cannot be applied to such broader categories. An entrepreneur requires sustainable skills working across multiple platforms and there are a number of factors to consider including the network of relations together with the foresight as to how decisions and choices will likely impact the future and other social and environmental influences that determine our existential position.

If someone was rich in Rome, its likely a lot of other people were suffering because of it. You can call it fortune, but it is no different to white collar criminals alleging innocence through economics.

I don't know why you are clinging to luck with such tenacity. That isn't how you made it into the big time, is it? My understanding was that you were persistent, industrious, smart, and had no major liabilities (in your personal nature).

Doesn't luck favor the prepared mind?

Sure, good fortune, luck, or a timely intervention can turn people's lives from likely mediocrity to likely high achievement. But one still has to cooperate with lady luck.

That isn't how you made it into the big time, is it? — Bitter Crank

Well, as much as it would be ego-pleasing to say that everything good in my life is due to my great genius, intelligence, discipline and hard work, that would be false. Yes, most of the worldly things I've had in my life are due to luck.

And this is coming from a person who has always tried to be hard-working and very disciplined. But the truth is, those attributes only allow me to maintain advantages most of the time, but not to gain them.

One thing I notice in many people is that they tend to value things they've worked for a lot, and the reason they cite for it is "I've worked a lot for it". Well, I'm about to go to the gym, and I've worked a lot for my physical condition for a quite a long time. And yet, when I look back upon all that work, all the many hours spent, it is like nothing. All those hours don't make me one single bit more attached to the result. If I could have had the result by snapping my fingers, I probably would have done that. Do I enjoy it more because "I've worked a lot for it?" - absolutely not. I enjoy it the same as if I were not to have worked for it. Because what is enjoyable is just having a healthy body that feels strong.

But I see some guys who go to the gym for example, and "feel proud" because of how much they worked... why does it matter? Does it matter that you worked 2000 hours or 2 hours? Results are relevant, not the time spent. People play all those stupid ego games, and deceive themselves about what are the real causes of success in life. The rich businessman says he is rich because of his great industriousness and intelligence - that's not true. He's rich because he happened to be stuck in the right social circumstances at the right time (and those circumstances push you to do what it takes anyway). The man with a great wife thinks he's married to such a woman because he's handsome, a great person, etc. etc. - truth is, he was just lucky.

As Heraclitus said, it does help to expect good fortune, but it is still fortune which does the trick. The rest is just an ego-game that we're trained to play, especially in modern societies. Discipline and hard-work only help after luck has already struck.

But one still has to cooperate with lady luck. — Bitter Crank

The difference between a disciplined (and all other good attributes) person winning the lottery and his opposite winning the lottery is that the former will maintain his winnings and grow them, while the other will return to his original condition in awhile. That's all there is to it. But luck is still the decisive factor even for the disciplined one.