People are likely to help if asked -- but much of it is because saying 'no' has a social cost, not because of inherent altruism. I'd wager it has something to do with instant versus delayed profit -- not helping now has a bigger loss than the cost of helping, which won't be seen until the help is complete. Note the social horror when people are obliged to help but didn't due to some social factor (Kitty Genovese is the common reference) -- in the Bystander Effect, nobody helps because one person doesn't help -- the social cost of not helping appears low if nobody is helping, because it is seen as unlikely that anyone would risk the cost of saying 'no'. Caste societies have a negative social response when you do help certain people, thus enforcing the lack of assistance for those people. Too often helping others has a negative social value -- whether perceived (the illusion of loss of home values due to having a black neighbor) or actual (de-slumification moves criminals into your neighborhood) -- the change needed isn't a reward to offset the cost, but to remove that negative cost for helping altogether. So, to avoid a stratified or self-centered society, there must be a social cost for refusal to help, not a reward for helping, and people need to learn to judge their own cost without comparing it to those around them.
#
No comments at this time.
|