Is there a word that describes someone with a "false sense of doing good"?

Solution 1:

In the UK, we refer to people who mistakenly think they are being helpful as:

well meaning or well-meaning(adj.):

• wanting to have a good effect, but not always producing one

'I know he's well meaning, but I wish he'd leave us alone.'

Source: CDO

• having or indicating good or benevolent intentions, usually with unfortunate results

'He is a well-meaning but ineffectual leader.'

Source: Collins

'Well-meaning' people are usually full of enthusiasm for their pet project(s) and feel sure they are doing good, even when the evidence indicates otherwise. They do not necessarily lack intelligence; it's as if they wear blinkers and are unable to sense the shock and disappointment in others who have been on the receiving end of their 'assistance'.

I suspect a mild form of this tendency lurks within us all, as changing deeply held convictions is hard, but more extreme behaviours may indicate a psychological problem, perhaps stemming from low self-esteem.

In the UK, when you hear someone say, 'S/he meant well...', and just go silent, you know exactly what it means!

Solution 2:

I don't agree with most of your examples and comments about "liberal fools", but I'll focus on you saying this:

This word would be very applicable to modern on-line media like Facebook where you have all these people fighting for various "causes" of which they have no real knowledge.

You might consider the term slacktivist:

Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little physical or practical effect, other than to make the person doing it feel satisfied that they have contributed. Slacktivism can be defined as the act of showing support for a cause but only truly being beneficial to the egos of people participating in this so-called activism. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist. The underlying assumption being promoted by the term is that these low-cost efforts substitute for more substantive actions rather than supplementing them, although this assumption has been criticized.

Many websites and news platforms have integrated social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter into their interface, allowing people to easily "like", "share" or "tweet" about something interesting they saw on the Internet. People can now express concern about social or political issues with nothing more than the click of a mouse, raising the question of what is actually being accomplished by these "likes" when very little thought or effort is required.

Slacktivist activities include signing Internet petitions, joining a community organization without contributing to the organization's efforts, copying and pasting of social network statuses or messages or altering one's personal data or avatar on social network services. Research is beginning to explore the connection between the concept and modern activism/advocacy, as groups are increasingly using social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS describes the term "slacktivist", saying it "posits that people who support a cause by performing simple measures are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change"

Solution 3:

I don't agree with your example; recycling paper is indeed a good thing to do. However, I understand your question, and you can use any example you want.

For me, a more relevant example would be a missionary. A good word to describe such a person, who may harbor a militant or crusading zeal, is evangelistic. And that term isn't exclusively reserved for religious people. It can describe anyone with a holier than thou attitude and an arrogant belief that only they know what's right and what's wrong.