Yes, all of us may be in need of a helping hand, but the owner of that hand may not act out of the noble feelings, he/she proposes to have. It's a very interesting fact that the "helper" may at the same time be a sort of "oppressor". Sometimes it's necessary to discern between these two - namely in the same individual! - unless the one in need of help wants to allow the "helper" to run his/her own show as an oppressor.
A beautiful, altruistic situation, but on the other hand, she may have designs upon the cat, whom she intends to grab and keep as a pet or as an object for sale. Not that this looks like a sneaky plan by a child to subdue the animal, but ....
And what about this situation? The man may not have any designs upon the poor puppy, but, on the other hand, he may: Don't Indians eat pets, e.g. cats and dogs like this one? (Actually, I don't know if that's the case, but the suspicion is there).
Yes, that's a beautiful moment of true altruism as the child is too young to have designs upon the camera person whom he is offering the sucker. For a hand to be genuinely helpful it must be connected to an innocence like the one we see here. There is nothing "double-faced" in a child like this one which is a guarantee that he is not suffering from something I myself have found in some kinds of helpers: Those who are bordering on something one might see as the "Munchhausen By Proxy"-concept. They are very eager to take over situations that don't need being taken over in a strong wish to appear in a certain manner as "The Good Samaritan". In their own opinion they are conducting not only good, but also necessary acts of kindness, and it may be very difficult to make it clear to them that, yes, some individuals are in need of a helping hand, but what they chose to offer is nothing, but an annoying interference. To help without any ulterior motives is a beautiful act of true kindness, but very often it's mixed up with something not all that beautiful ....
