To Help or Not to Help

We’ve spent a lot of time in class discussing morality and people’s reasons for helping or not helping others in need. Out of curiosity I looked up some information on reasons why people help or don’t help others and discovered a recent news story where a man attempted to stop another man accosting a woman in New York City. This Good Samaritan was stabbed for his trouble, and lay bleeding on the sidewalk until he died an hour later. What makes this case interesting is not that the man—Hugo Tale-Yax—was stabbed to death in New York city, but that a total of twenty-five people walked by him on the busy street and none of them reported it or tried to help him. Surveillance cameras show that many of the passersby looked over at the victim, one person stopped to shake him, and one man even took a picture on his cell phone.

But why did this happen? Psychologists blame it on something called the Bystander Effect, which holds that the more people who are around to witness an accident or attack, the less likely a person is to report it or help out the victim(s). The assumption is made by all the observers that someone else will call it in or provide help, and therefore none of them choose to help. In the case of Tale-Yax, this psychological phenomena cost him his life.

Other examples include the more famous case in 1964 of a 28-year-old woman named Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death in an alley by a serial killer while her neighbors heard and ignored her screams. In October of last year, a 15-year-old girl was gang raped for two hours outside of her San Francisco high school during the homecoming dance. Students meandered in and out of the dance, stopped to watch and laugh at what was taking place, and then went back to the party. Some dance attendees even joined in. A more recent example took place over the weekend in Toronto when a on a79-year-old man was mugged on a subway train. No one helped him either, even though there was a passenger assistance alarm located in the train car.

So why does the Bystander Effect stop us from doing what is right? As previously stated, when there are others around, people tend to make the assumption that "someone else will handle this." But, when we all make the same assumption, obviously nothing gets done. This effect exists in part due to something called "diffusion of responsibility," in which responsibility for the welfare of a person harmed in an event is spread evenly among the number of people who witness the event. In other words, if one person witnesses a mugging, he or she is more likely to act because the responsibility for reporting said act is his or hers alone. But when twenty people witness the same event, then theoretically, each person carries 1/20th of the responsibility for reporting the incident or helping the victim.

Is this reality? If I see a man dying on a street corner and ignore him, am I less responsible for his eventual death simply because there were also 20 other people who did the same? Collectively, we as a group of bystanders failed to act, but will the fact that I am only 1/20th of the problem change the fact that my actions could have saved him? Similarly, why do we look at this issue in terms of negative responsibility as opposed to positive potential? If I don't act, I will only be 5% to blame, but if I DO act, then my actions could potentially be 100% of the reason why the man survived or at least got medical attention. So instead of thinking of ourselves as one part of a group, couldn't we think of ourselves as one whole person who could do one thing and be wholly responsible for the outcome? In the same way, doesn't that mean that each person would cease to be 1/20th or 1/3rd or 1/1032nd responsible and begin to see him or herself as 100% responsible?

Obviously, we can't wish this thinking into existence. We think how we think and nothing can change that, can it? But most of us view this passive behavior as being a problem, do we not? So I suppose the question is, can we choose to change our group's way of thinking? If we can, what will it take? Could we simply push for more Good Samaritan laws that require bystanders to report attacks and accidents? Or will these laws be viewed as a legal obligation rather than a moral one? Isn't it a little pathetic that we have to create laws so that people will help each other?

Our society is one driven by social norms. We praise individuality and innovation yet by and large value conformity. A man may be bleeding on the sidewalk, but if I help him, I'll be strange. I'll stick out. I'll be abnormal. I also may be hailed as a hero, but in the moment, people don't think about becoming heroes. They think about keeping their heads down and staying out of other people's business. "I didn't want to get involved." That is what a neighbor of Kitty Genovese said after her murder. We just don't want to get involved. And this issue isn't just one that crops up in issues of life and death. I've seen this waiting for a the class before ours to dismiss. Six, seven, eight or more people all stand outside the room, unsure of whether or not to check and see whether there is anyone in the room, until one brave soul opens the door (risking stares from the students and instructor who may be inside). Then, if he or she goes in, the rest follow.

We're sheep, waiting for a shepherd to tell us what to do. But when human lives and human rights are at stake, can we afford to be sheep? How do we break out of his alarming habit of "not wanting to get involved" and do the right thing?



-Rebecca Schwarz-