WHAT exactly is wrong with the term do-gooder and how did it become an expression of derision?

It is usually used as a form of abuse - most often by someone who disagrees with what the so-called do-gooder is trying to do.

It has become a word used to ridicule someone for trying to help another, for no personal gain - however naive that may be.

But surely, trying to do something good should not be mocked and the person attempting to do good should not be held in contempt.

What would we prefer - someone attempting to do evil?

The word is shunned even by those doing the good. Perhaps it is because they don't want to appear too soft and the word suggests someone impractical, or not living in the real world.

Someone who is "looking after number one" is seen as the more realistic, hard-boiled and showing more common sense - qualities most of us would aspire to.

But I agree with American writer William Coplin, who found it impossible to get a publisher to print the word do-gooder on the front cover of his book How You Can Help: An Easy Guide to Incorporating Good Deeds into Your Everyday Life.

He wrote: "We need to rescue the term do-gooder from the ridicule it receives in our culture.

"The idea of spending some time and money on making the world better does not threaten our individualism, pragmatism or even our materialism."

Is it not the case that if more people attempted to "do good" for others - instead of just for themselves - even for a short time, we would all be better off?

So I say let's redefine the word do-gooder to what the person really is and does - someone who volunteers and devotes their time and money, however small, to helping others.

Or am I being naive?