How Much of Goodness is Sufficient?

A tiniest of puppy is stranded on a busy road. Before it added to the sins of some nastily spinning wheel, he picks it up and places the tiny thing on the pavement. Driven by the larger selfish cause of reaching office on time, he hastily moves ahead. But the obliged little thing is running after him as fast as it can. He just runs himself out of its reach. But while doing so he feels like doing more bad than good.

Ravaged by the times, devastated by being supportless at such an old age, stinking in her rags, and lying more cheaply than a junk food wrapper by her side, she protrudes her bony hand to stop his escape from the puppy. The pathetic apparition jolts him to the core. It is scary to even image a human being lying like that. But then Delhi has development to its credit as well. A sky high, glass fronted office complex blinds his eyes to distract him from the tragic vision. He turns his face away from the blinding light to look at the darkness spread around his feet. To do justice to his conscience, and to seek better karma for himself, he draws out a coin and places it on the dirty hand. This pause gives time to the little puppy to reach from behind. It stands by them now. He looks into its eyes. These are dull grey full of innocence, full of melting pitiable liquid; of childhood needing support. He now looks into her eyes. He sees two hopeless dark caverns; there is no light there. Two pairs of eyes peeping at him. He starts running again, not being able to bear the pangs of guilt for not being able to do more for them. The puppy stays back; sits comfortably by her side like it has got back its mother.      

Now the dilemma arises. Is it possible to do a good deed in part? Or goodness requires the completion of a chance-fallen or self-created cause in totality? Just because most of us are incapable to see through our act of beneficence to its destination, is it justified not to take that littlest of step which might keep the chances still alive for someone in need?