I was doing a module called Legal Case Studies for this semester
in law school before I took leave of application. It was a module to train one
to deal with corporate legal work. The scenario featured a case that requires
opposing legal teams to negotiate and structure a corporate deal that would
encompass the charitable aims of one side, and the profit-making objectives of
the other side in the running of a hospital for the elderly.
We had to research on possible types of business arrangements,
ranging from a private limited company, to a trust, or a social enterprise. And
if possible, come up with a win-win solution for both sides of the negotiating
table, while seeking to carve an edge for the side that you are representing. A
groupmate of mine who has experience in setting up enterprises made a comment
during our discussion about how it is not enough to want to do good, but that
one needs to be good at doing good. There are technical aspects that goes into
the running of charitable and non-profit organizations that requires knowledge
and skill on the part of the one managing it.
I suppose it does take ideas and knowledge about how to
effect much good in society, whether it be to help the poor or the sick. And
whilst a charitable spirit is the foundation for engaging in charitable work,
some expertise in knowing how to carry its operation is required as well,
especially for those handling the operation of the organization. But I was
reflecting on the comment made by this groupmate of mine whose comment seems to
downplay the charitable sentiment as not being enough. It is a sort of
statement that bears that philosophical approach of realism or pragmatism towards
approaching things in life. The sort of mentality that bears the trait of ‘let
me show you how good I am by how much good I have done.’
I suppose I would like to think that everyone can do
good, and there is no need to measure up to a standard of how effective you are
at doing good. We do need people with knowledge, ideas, and expertise. But let’s
not dismiss the person who contributes with his little skill or resources to doing
good as not being enough.
2 comments:
quite interesting. this is similar to game theory whereby the best strategy played by each player might not necessary be the optimal for society. I guess many a times parties should negotiate and obtain a solution which benefits both side and even make third parties better off. However, i tend to believe that assumption plays a big part here.
Yup, I suppose society can't function if everyone wants to do only the big things and not the little things.
Post a Comment