Thoughts on giving help and withholding help

HELPS IN THE SERVICE OF HUMANITY

Thoughts on the power of helps and its opposite, with thoughts on the articles by Darley and Letane (1968), which is a study on whether and to what extent people will not respond to others in trouble if there are other bystanders around.  People at this stage of personality “stand by” while a victim is suffering because of what the bystander might perceive the other bystanders might or might not do.  It suggests or predicts that a bystander will not act to help someone if another bystander does not come forth.  The other work I studied and meditated on is an article by Letane and Darley (1968), which studied, among others, the real world event of the “Kitty Genovese murder in which 38 people witnessed a killing from their individual apartments without acting, in many other emergencies several bystanders are in contact with and can influence each other. In these situations, processes other than responsibility diffusion will also operate” (Letane & Darley, 1968, p. 215).  This diffusion means that everybody and nobody is responsible for reaching out to help the suffering in collective eyes.

Thus, after researching and studying the above material on the subject of helps and refusal to help others in danger, I garnered the following ideas about what help is and is not:  Nature never made help dependent upon any outside variable such as whether people have a good day or not (Fiske, 2012, p. 355). Some people have very bad hair days, yet they can be the most helpful people who put grievances and afflictions or trials and tribulations aside while helping others in their difficulties as far as possible. They do it with a straight face, washed, greased, and looking like they have no problem in the world (Psalm 42:11).  The researchers did not control for cheery attitudes that influenced their demeanors in those studies (Cf. Fiske, 2012, p. 355, where attitudes or moods influenced helping or not helping others in distress), that is, whether bystanders were in a certain mood or held insensitive attitudes toward the scene.  Further, people are more likely to help others if alone than when in a group; it further suggested that groups should be more prone to help rather than be passive, which was not the case in the murder scene and many present day scenes (Latané & Darley, 1968, p. 216) .  Certainly, some people cannot help others in some situations, but that was not the case in the murder of a woman with 38 witnesses looking on (Latané & Darley, 1968, p. 220, para. 2), unless all onlookers faced obstacles they could not overcome to seek help for the victim. Alternately, what if all bystanders thought it was not their obligation to attempt to help or assist?

Thus, on the other hand, it could be said of all of the onlookers that collectively and individually, they failed humanity by choosing not to come to the aid of the victim (even if only by calling 911 from afar) for any number of reasons including fear (Crisp & Turner, 2010, p. 307; Darley & Latané, 1968, p. 377). For example, the Bhagavad Gita says of fear that, “Many whose craving, fear and anger are gone, who are totally focused on Me, who are purified by austerity and education, attained My level of existence. (Beloved, Chapter 4.10, p. 32). However, the fear factor among those witnesses was not documented or disclosed (p. 355), as it was shown to be a factor in Darley and Letan (1968, p. 377), where fear was an excuse for not wanting to get involved.  That is about the same as other excuses such as it is not one's business that people are being harmed in some way.  That sentiment is not an example of turning the other cheek. Some people, on the other hand, cannot help in some given situations (Fiske, 2012). It might not be their perceived Karma, debt, to act (no matter how much they possibly wish they could) (Latané & Darley, 1968, p. 220, para. 2) in that possibly one has no arms and legs, or one is mute, blind, among other things. 

Another factor could be that the onlookers knew the victim and the culprit, and made judgments calls about those two facts. One thing is not good about helping, which is why people's mere existence needs time to morph into genuine humanness (sublimated). This change enables us to know the difference. Otherwise, we can experience many delusions on the subject of helps. Conversely, the vain-glory helper still blesses the one who needs the service, whatever the reason for giving it.  No matter what the situations are that we find ourselves in, or the circumstances we face in our lives, if there is a need and we can fill it, then that is our need to fill because competent, able, and thus obligated (Crisp & Turner, 2010, p. 207; Latané & Darley, 1968, p. 220; Luke 17:10; Proverbs 22:9). If we do not have what is required to satisfy that need, it is not our obligation to do the impossible because someone else has the wherewithal to fill that Karmic deed – they know in their hearts who they are.

Conversely, people fail themselves and humanness when they are obligated to help in some situation where the help cannot be repaid sooner or later. For lack of altruistic compassion, one can walk past an assigned (by one’s own Inner Guide) obligation to reach out.  That negative response to need therefore generates a karmic debt that must be repaid (good bread versus bad bread: Eccl. 11:1; Proverbs 25:26); it means one has not possessed his or her own soul and is thus not self-directed).  In that case, one may fail to render altruistic service individually or in a group if like-minded. Thus, people refuse to lend a helping hand or fulfill a requirement due to arrogance and other variables (Micah 6:8). When we act as if we see nothing, no matter what the excuse, we have failed as human beings in the name of something, because "The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delights in his way" (Psalm 37:23). That something can be fear or envy (the worst enemies) or anything else short of mental incapacity to know the difference.

We are not required to help someone at the expense of our own lives unless conviction persuades us that it is our calling (purpose) and obligation (dharma) to perform it:  soldiers, firefighters, parents, stranger for stranger, etc. are good examples.  According to the Bhavagad Gita (2009), "Thus having understood what is higher than intelligence, keeping the personal energies under control of the spirit, uproot, O powerful man, the enemy, the form of passionate desire which is difficult to grasp" (Beloved, Chapter 3.43, p. 30). If that is the case, it is a good and altruistic sacrifice (with good reward). If we martyr ourselves in any form for vainglory, we will not profit – even if we give our bodies to be burned (1 Cor. 13:3) on the funeral pyre. Further, if it is not our purposed obligation, we bear thorns for fruit (Isaiah 5:6; Proverbs 16:19, 22:6). Our acts are in vain when we perform those acts for less than altruistic (harmless) reasons for the lack of understanding (Fiske, 2012, p. 385; (bit.ly/SnojIs).

Thus, it would not be prosocial behavior (help for the good of others). It would be promoting one's self-serving egoism. For example, in its highest sense, prosocial behavior is not personally biased in that it will help anyone, human or animal, without distinction and unconditionally, being free of egoism or has experienced a sublimated and elevated ego (integrated self). This type of behavior in its highest aspect looks beyond whether the needy is familiar, tied to the actor by blood or common interest (ingroup or my group), or of a certain ethnicity or race. Therefore, there should be no hesitance to help outgroups (not my people; not my friends; not my church; not my children; not my business) when one has the power and resources (not always money) to help the victim – another social being (Fiske, 2012; (bit.ly/SnojIs).

Mary Handy Moore

BA Sociology, Ashford University

Ordained Minister, Independent

MS Psychology,Walden University

References

Beloved, Michael. (2009, November 6). Bhagavad Gita In English. Kindle Edition.

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). Essential social Psychology (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

Fiske, S. T. (2012). Social beings: Core motives in social Psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221.