Offering assistance to those in need appears to be one of the primary ethical principles to which most people are expected to adhere in modern society. However, the phenomenon known as the bystander effect appears to be tragically true, with a significant number of people preferring not to intervene in the situations that could be resolved with their help. The described phenomenon may be rooted in the need for self-preservation and the fear of consequences.
The phenomenon of the Good Samaritan dilemma, or the bystander effect, is typically described as the refusal to take action to help a random person in need. The case of Kitty Genovese’s murder is typically mentioned as the one that led to coining the term and proving the existence of the phenomenon. However, after dissecting the case of Kitty Genovese, one will realize that it did not exemplify the so-called bystander effect directly. Indeed, the number of people witnessing the scene was exaggerated, and there were a few of those that attempted addressing the situation, yet with little success. Ultimately, the murder of Kitty Genovese cannot be regarded as the ultimate proof of the existence of the bystander effect and the presence of the good Samaritan dilemma. However, further cases with a similar premise demonstrated the presence of a problem in the specified area (Bergstrom, 2017).
Overall, there is an obvious propensity among general audiences to avoid offering immediate help to strangers. Although the described trend might seem incompatible with the existing ethical standards, a closer look at the possible implications of immediate assistance will give a more definitive answer as to why people refuse to help (Garneau et al., 2016). The threat of legal repercussions in case of making a mistake or a misjudgment appears to be the primary reasoning behind the refusal to assist a potential victim.
In addition, the far of failing to provide the assistance needed appears to be one of the main reasons for people to refuse to follow the Good Samaritan law. Over the past few decades, several instances of people acting in good faith yet causing more harm than good have become notorious, creating grounds for people to avoid accepting additional responsibility and making the choices that would result in causing additional damage.
The possibility of misreading the situation and acting in a way that will cause even more damage to all parties involved is a powerful roadblock on the path to quick action as a response to an emergency. Being unaware of the context in which a specific situation occurs, people hesitate to intervene immediately since the situation may turn out to be not as drastic as it might seem at first glance (Montana, 2017). Without a clear perspective on a specific situation, the threat of a misunderstanding increases in the perception of an onlooker, which is why the latter has the propensity to hesitate when immediate action is needed.
The lack of action con the part of a bystander can also be explained by the dispersion of responsibility. As established in previous studies, the greater the range of onlookers is, the lower is the probability of one of them intervening since each assumes that the others will take charge of the situation (Garneau et al., 2016). Although the specified perspective has been debated, it aligns with several other concepts such as herd mentality (Montana, 2017). Therefore, the unwillingness to support a stranger in the street does not necessarily stem from the lack of empathy or the presence of deeply seated sociopathy; instead, it can be regarded as the direct effect of reliance on the community as opposed to the readiness to accept responsibility.
Finally, the unwillingness to be entangled in a situation that may result in a threat to one’s well-being and safety takes an important place among the factors affecting the decision not to support a victim. The fear for personal physical safety and well-being appears to be the main driving factor behind the indecisiveness when it comes to opting for the Good Samaritan law. The specified justification of the refusal to assist a stranger in the street is, perhaps, the most difficult to debate since the right to safety remains one of the foundational rights of an individual.
Fearing the possible negative implications, being uncertain in their power, and simply being afraid of aggravating the situation seems to be the main reasons behind people’s unwillingness to intervene in the situations that could use their assistance. Coupled with the unwillingness to get involved in a situation that may entail legal repercussions or simply misunderstanding the problem, people tend to abstain from offering help to random people that appear to be in drastic need of it. However, the specified behavior is quite difficult to judge given the threat of criminal behavior that individuals face. Therefore, to encourage people to display the “Good Samaritan” attitudes, it is necessary to create premises for greater personal safety and reduce crime rates in communities.
References
Bergstrom, T. (2017). The Good Samaritan and traffic on the Road to Jericho. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 9(2), 33-53.
Garneau, W. M., Harris, D. M., & Viera, A. J. (2016). Cross-sectional survey of Good Samaritan behaviour by physicians in North Carolina. BMJ Open, 6(3), 1-12.
Montana, P. G. (2017). Watch or report-livestream or help-Good Samaritan laws revisited: The need to create a duty to report. Cleveland State Law Review, 66, 533.