If I understand the author of this blog correctly, their reading of Murdoch leads to the following observations:

1. Being good to the other is a matter of identifying, disabling and removing one's own ego in the relationship.
2. In the relationship with an inanimate object, the object itself loses nothing if you fail to disable your ego. The loss is yours, probably due to epistemic vices resulting from your ego deflecting correct reflection regarding the object.
3. In the case of an animate object, a person, animal or group, the harm imposed by the involvement of your ego is felt by them.
4. The last assumes that without the ego, the remainder of your desire is to benefit the other. This would assume learning correctly what they need and desire and then spending the energy to implement the benefit. Your ego would lead to both epistemic vices in learning about the person and to decision making that would be influenced by your own needs rather than theirs.