I think this type of discussion will lead to a downward spiral to muddy waters. An example of these "saints are indirectly doing harm in their selfish pursuit of doing good" I can think of are environmental activists and maybe vegan activists. They block roads, harass people, etc. Between those and the ones that actually kill, injure, and commit heinous crimes, I think I prefer the 'saints'. We just need to make the laws clearer about these things.
I remember some dark retort about saving the environment. That if people really wanted to save the environment, they shouldn't have children and even off themselves because they contribute wastes in some shape and form. What I'm getting at is that for everything we do, there will most likely be some inversely affected. We just need to try to do the least harmful.
Oh, I agree. All waters are muddy in terms of social morality. I would rather people try to do good and fail, than do nothing to try and improve things at all. There are always going to be arguments over what is right and wrong, but if we get our actions right more than wrong, we will at least head in a better direction.
Oh in an ideal world, that is easily attainable. But with our world that has different values and teachings, that is difficult if not impossible. An example would be religion. A lot of people have different interpretations of Islamic teachings. A lot are peaceful, but there are also those that are violent. To those that are violent, what they are doing is right, but for everyone else it is wrong. For environmental activists, blocking roads and causing problems for others is right because it helps them get more exposure for what they are fighting for; but is wrong for everyone else, especially those affected.
What is right and wrong for us might be the opposite for others. What could be a better direction for us, can be a worse direction for others.