One of my favourite TV ads is for the Cadbury 5-Star chocolate bar. In it, a boy is eating a 5-star. Along with him, there are four other men and a dead body inside an elevator. Despite being repeatedly told to press the elevator button, he does nothing. Frustrated, because the men were getting late for a funeral, they were about to hit him. Just then, the ringing of the phone breaks the silence. To everyone's shock, the dead man wakes up and answers the phone.

The moral of the story is to indulge in moments of pure relaxation and escape the world's obsession with constant productivity. In other words, the do nothing philosophy.

On the other hand, in a Sting energy drink ad, a man takes a girl to the top of a skyscraper to take a shelfie with a giant gorilla while the other people are running for their lives. This emphasises a "can-do" attitude, encouraging people to seize and maximise every moment of their lives. This aligns with an existential philosophy of embracing the present and overcoming perceived limitations.

Thus, we have a perceived clash of two views: Do nothing vs Can do attitude. Or just another way of saying that "best is the enemy of good". However, this is not the case.

The word best often represents perfection, ultimate productivity, and absolute achievement. It is the dream of every student chasing ranks, every nation chasing GDP, and every warrior chasing victory. Yet, this pursuit of “best” can also slip into obsession, where human well-being, balance, and self-care are sacrificed. Thus, while “best” may inspire progress, it carries a shadow—its potential to turn into an enemy of “good.”

An enemy does not always arrive with weapons; sometimes it arrives with temptations. The obsession with being the best breeds toxic productivity, where individuals burn out in the name of efficiency. For example, Japanese warlord Tokugawa, who sought absolute victory, faced humiliation and defeat at the hands of Takeda at the Battle of Mikatagahara.

In modern society, this enemy manifests in procrastination (waiting for perfect conditions before starting), in pride and desire that blind leaders, and in hunger and poverty when nations overlook simple welfare in the name of GDP growth, economic progress and national income.

Hence, the “enemy” is not outside us, but within our own unchecked desires and ambitions—bringing us back to the question, what then is “good”?

Good represents sufficiency, balance, and sustainability. For J.S. Mill, intrinsic good was happiness, while money was only an instrumental good. The Buddha reminded humanity that true good lies in reducing suffering by letting go of excessive desire.

In today’s world, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) embody this philosophy—universal health, education, and environmental balance, not necessarily the best skyscrapers or the best military arsenals. Good, therefore, is not mediocrity, but a balanced middle path where human flourishing takes precedence over obsessive perfection.

At the individual level, chasing “best” often leads to stress, anxiety, and burnout. A student endlessly revising for “perfect” answers may end up procrastinating instead of producing a “good” answer. The psychological trap of perfectionism hinders creativity and self-care. Conversely, embracing imperfection—through hobbies, relaxation, and “do nothing philosophy”—nurtures well-being.

If individuals suffer from the tyranny of “best,” nations too, are not immune.

India’s Constitution itself embodies the idea that “best is the enemy of good.” The framers deliberately kept the Directive Principles of State Policy non-justiciable, recognising that immediate perfection was impossible in a newly independent nation. Instead, these principles serve as a guiding light—a “good enough” path toward gradual progress. For instance, the Right to Education or Right to Food were implemented later when conditions matured.

Just as nations must balance ambition with reality, societies too must beware of perfectionist traps.

Social movements often collapse under the weight of utopian “best” visions. Revolutions that demanded absolute purity of ideology often led to violence and failure. By contrast, India’s social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and B.R. Ambedkar embraced gradual, “good” changes—abolition of Sati, temple entry, constitutional safeguards. These were not perfect solutions, but stepping stones.

On the global stage, the same principle plays out in international relations.

At the international level, the Paris Climate Agreement illustrates the power of “good enough.” While it fell short of creating the “best” framework for carbon neutrality, it brought together almost all nations to take collective action. Contrast this with the Kyoto Protocol, which demanded rigid commitments and saw many countries withdraw. Sometimes, international cooperation survives not because it is “best,” but because it is “good enough” to keep dialogue alive.

Governments, as the managers of collective life, reflect this dilemma most sharply.

Governments often fail when they chase “best” grand projects without attending to basic needs. For instance, overemphasis on prestige projects may come at the cost of rural health or education. A balanced government recognises that incremental welfare policies—MGNREGA, midday meals—are “good” steps that sustain citizens’ lives even if they are not “best” economic strategies.

Philosophy provides deeper insights into why moderation matters.

Philosophically, the paradox “best is the enemy of good” recalls Aristotle’s Golden Mean, which warns against extremes. The Buddha’s Middle Path similarly rejects the obsession with absolute victory. Paradoxically, in seeking less, one achieves more lasting peace. As Seneca said, “True happiness is to enjoy the present, without anxious dependence upon the future.”

What philosophy teaches, psychology confirms in human behaviour.

Perfectionism creates procrastination—waiting for perfect conditions before starting. Psychologists identify this as a self-defeating cycle, where the ideal of “best” paralyses action. Conversely, embracing “good enough” promotes resilience, motivation, and satisfaction.

If psychology cautions against obsession, history provides dramatic illustrations.

History is rich with lessons. Oda Nobunaga chose to survive by retreating to Kanegasaki, embracing a “do nothing philosophy” to fight another day. In contrast, empires that overreached—like Napoleon in Russia—fell victim to the enemy within: perfectionist ambition.

Just as history warns us, economics too shows the value of sufficiency over excess.

Economically, chasing “best” growth through unchecked industrialisation has led to inequality and crises. On the other hand, welfare economics, pioneered by Amartya Sen, stresses that human development indices—education, health, equality—are “good” measures of progress. India's obsession with development has displaced thousands of tribals, caused deforestation and disasters like the Uttarakhand floods of 2013; while Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness model shows the wisdom of prioritising “good” over “best.”

The environment provides the starkest testimony.

In environmental policy, striving for “best” technological progress often undermines the planet. Fossil-fuel dependency and consumerism have brought climate change. Yet, simple “good” practices—sustainable agriculture, local conservation, lifestyle changes—offer lasting solutions. In ecology, balance, not dominance, is survival.

Even science and spirituality echo the same paradox.

Science advances by accepting “good enough” models until better ones emerge. Newton’s mechanics were not “perfect,” yet they enabled centuries of progress until Einstein refined them. Spiritually too, traditions remind us that striving for perfection blinds us to the present moment. The Bhagavad Gita teaches action without attachment to perfect outcomes.

Yet, we must ask: is “best” always the enemy of “good”? Not necessarily. ISRO’s Chandrayaan-3 shows how the pursuit of perfection can motivate excellence. Failure of Chandrayaan-2 did not paralyse but propelled Indian scientists to aim higher. Thus, “best” is not always an enemy, but becomes one when it blinds us to the value of “good.”

To avoid this trap, individuals must embrace self-care and the “do nothing philosophy.” Governments should adopt pragmatic welfare policies. Societies should celebrate sufficiency rather than utopia. Internationally, cooperative “good enough” agreements are better than unattainable ideals. Philosophically, following Buddha’s wisdom of reducing suffering and Aristotle’s golden mean ensures balance.

Going back to the 5-star ad and Sting energy ad, even though at first it seemed like a clash between two opposite poles, in reality, it represents the two sides of the same coin. In other words, the paradox of “Best vs Good" is not a call to mediocrity, but to balance. Best motivates, but obsession with best destroys. Good sustains, but complacency in good prevents progress. Wisdom lies in harmonising both.

.    .    .