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.
