Who's the Good Samaritan?

Have you seen this shocking video of a hit-and-run victim abandoned in the street? (WARNING: This video may not be suitable for younger TDD readers. Please use proper discretion.)

As I watched the sheer apathy on display as a number of cars and people made their way past this man, I couldn't help but wonder, "Who have we become?" Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) in which it was the most unlikely person who eventually stopped to help the man in the street, after so many others had passed by and left him for dead. Unfortunately, a security camera in Hartford, CT caught on film a modern-day version of that story. And the ending of this version is not so redemptive.

Interestingly, the accompanying news article has a poll which asks two basic questions: 1.) How surprised are you that no one helped him?, and 2.) Would you have helped this man?

It's presumably quite easy for us to assume that, "Of course, I would have helped this man." But would we have really? Sadly, the apathy of so many in that video is not as surprising to me as I would want it to be.

I can hope I would have stopped to help him, and truthfully, I believe I would have. (In fact, I had a similar experience late one night returning from my brother Doug's house in inner-city Indianapolis in which I stopped to check on a man who had been dragged by a car in the street and left for dead.) But why would I have? It has to do with my Christian worldview which prompts such action. It is a worldview, exemplified in the perfect example of Jesus, which compels self-sacrifice for the sake of others.

Conversely, I always filter these incidents through a different lens. What if I didn't believe in God? How would I respond? Could I make a case that my answer to that second poll question should be "Absolutely"?

Removing our emotional reaction to this incident from consideration, could we not assume in a more detached sense that this man's situation could simply be explained through basic evolutionary theory? What compels me to look out for his interests above my own? Not much. In fact, Richard Dawkins has written extensively on the idea of the "selfish gene" which would seem to support such a mentality.

But, if on the other hand, I do feel some sense that the right thing to do is to help this man, from where does that compulsion come?

The difficulty here is that the Christian worldview does not make any room for justifying our abandoning a man who was not smart enough to keep from walking in front of a moving car. And certainly, there are a number of evolutionary skeptics as well who would want to believe that helping him is indeed the right thing to do. But if we're going to be honest about this quandary, what is the stronger evolutionary case to be made here, in light of ongoing evolutionary natural selection which weeds out the weaker members of a species? Is it more consistent to put self second and help this man? Or, is it more in keeping with the "survival of the fittest" principle to justify his misstep as a part of the ongoing evolutionary process and leave him where he is (or better yet, at least move him over to the curb so the rest of us can get on with our day)?

Comments

[John]

I anticipate that many of you skeptics who read The Daily Detour regularly are already assuming that I have over-simplified the evolutionary analysis here. And, for the sake of time and blog space, I have.

Certainly, there are a variety of evolutionary nuances that one could go into when considering this particular incident. But the basic tension I have proposed above, about how the fundamental principle of natural selection plays out in everyday life, does deserve consideration. And its real-world application, particularly in light of such incidents, strikes at the heart of some very critical questions one should be asking about how different worldviews might respond to such events.

Does our "gut instinct"/conscience/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, which tells us that the right thing to do is to help the man in the street, reveal an inherent consistency with Darwinian evolution (which is essentially built on the most basic premise of a "me first" mentality)? Or, does it actually betray an allegience to a set of values that are more consistent with a different worldview?

[chris corwin]

"Does our "gut instinct"/conscience/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, which tells us that the right thing to do is to help the man in the street, reveal an inherent consistency with Darwinian evolution (which is essentially built on the most basic premise of a "me first" mentality)? Or, does it actually betray an allegience to a set of values that are more consistent with a different worldview?"

now this is a good question -- and i am glad you see you clarified your post with your comment.

(note: i believe almost everyone who didn't help in the video wanted to, and felt guilty about not helping, but didn't for a variety of complex reasons and/or lame justifications)

the gut instinct human beings have to help is totally consistent with an nontheistic evolutionary theory of how we came to be what we are today.

the mistake many people make, when not super familiar with the evolutionary theory, is to assume that everything we exhibit is there because it is an evolutionary advantage -- that it was selected for.

however, many traits are *side effects* of things that were selected for, and it is likely, perhaps, that moral values could be such a thing.

(this does not mean that we should just chuck them out, and act as if we do not have any morals whatsoever. we could not do that, even if we wanted to, any more than we could act as if we do not feel a sense of happiness or sadness.)

there is some excting research going on on how and why we even have morals, from a biological perspective.

i highly encourage you to check out:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/austin_dacey_moral_values_after_darwin/

[chris corwin]

i should like to point out another common mistake about evolution: "me first" simply does not apply to the individual -- it is the *genes* that "want" to survive.

for some species that means living fast nd dying young, having as many offspring as you can in the meantime, and hoping they survive.

for some of us it means delaying reproduction until later in life, having 2 -- 12 offspring and nurturing them so that they too will have offspring that have offspring.

but make no mistake: it is the genes that drive the desire to reproduce (successful genes will create this desire -- genes that do not don't get passed on quite so much) and it is the genes that drive all the expressions of individuality we each have -- including the desire not only to live a long time, but also to want to help those in need.

(a species that always only has completely selfish individuals would be nothing like the human species, and it is dishonest to pretend that we humans are always only selfish)

again: human beings do not express "me first" as individuals -- it is the set of genes that seperates homo sapiens from homo neantertalus or canus lupus that says "me first".

and even *then* there are such things as symbiotic relationships, so that even at the genetic level, it is much more of an "us first" mentality.

flowers as we know them would not be what they are without bees.

and neither would the bees be w/o the flowers.

saying that evolution automatically and nessecarily leads to a-moral and selfish behaviour in individuals makes for good strawmen, but it is neither good science nor good philosophy.

it's not even great theology, for that matter.

[Mandy Leech]

My first and most important reason to help that man would be that I would want someone to help me/my father/family member. I would expect it from someone else and would be angry if they didn't.

[Mandy Leech]

Oh, yeah. Call me selfish. (I forgot to say that)

[Badthing]

"Who have we become?" (Regarding being apathetic)

I wouldn't pretend that we have "become" the type of people where this is a commonplace activity. When incidents like this DO happen, you can be certain that you will hear about it on the news, like you did. This is a factor of our human ability to share events/happenings very effectively (again, the news). So if incidents of moral depravity are dropping, while at the same time the chances of you hearing about the incidents that do happen are increasing, you might indeed ask yourself "What have we become?", but you are likely to draw the wrong conclusion. It's called confirmation bias.

In fact, deaths due to murder, war, etc. (all caused by moral depravities in my book - which is not a bible, btw) HAVE been dropping steadily, world-wide, perhaps coincidentally, along with the steady rise of secularism.

"But would we have really?" (Regarding helping an injured person)

Yes, I would. Definitely, no matter where I was heading or what I had to do at the time. I would call 911 and try to get the person to some safety and wait for the medics to arrive.

"But why would I have?"

Basically two reasons. It feels GREAT to have helped someone in a clearly meaningful way, perhaps even to have saved someone's life (saving a life is pretty extreme). It feels TERRIBLE to witness a being in pain, suffering or in just grave danger. Even more so if it's a human. I identify with them for some reason...

Now that's if the individual is a stranger. If it's someone I know, well, it becomes all the more important. And if it's a family member, I think one could bury any mention of just "walking by". See how that works? I don't think I am unusual; not in my experience at least.

"Conversely, I always filter these incidents through a different lens. What if I didn't believe in God? How would I respond? Could I make a case that my answer to that second poll question should be "Absolutely"?"

Well I hope that you would do that right thing either way. After all, it's not only you that has to live with the decision.

Furthermore, I'd venture to say that you need to get out more and meet different kinds of thinking people. The fact that you think to ask that question suggest that your viewpoints on this topic are narrow. Forgive me if I am mistaken about you, but I have met many good people who I know would also lend a hand to someone in need. Some of them also believe in a deity.

"In fact, Richard Dawkins has written extensively on the idea of the "selfish gene" which would seem to support such a mentality."

Who told you that? It supports no such thing.

"But, if on the other hand, I do feel some sense that the right thing to do is to help this man, from where does that compulsion come?"

Would the answer make a difference in how you applied your compulsion?
If I said "chemistry"? If I said "magic"? If I told you I feel it too and I do not have a sky god or other magics to direct me on these matters?

"Or, is it more in keeping with the "survival of the fittest" principle to justify his misstep as a part of the ongoing evolutionary process and leave him where he is"
"..."

First of all "survival of the fittest" isn't something we DO. It's not an activity. You can not choose to help or hinder. I know that all theistic people invoke "the will of god", so you should be able to grasp what I'm getting at.

And then you close with some stuff that shows you know not the difference between "is" and "ought".

Seriously, study on "is vs. ought". Just because nature is not kind, does not mean we ought to follow suite. God slayed MILLIONS in the bible, many many women and children (I give you 42 children set upon by bears for the horrible sin of laughing at a baldy), ought we do the same? No, we ought not. I'm better than that. You are too. We have a word for a people who behaves in that manner: sociopath (sure, you could say "it's god, god can do whatever because it's god", but my morals tell me that might does not make right, even when it comes to deities).

Anyone who uses the facts of evolution to form opinions on moral activities needs to do some serious reading (and no, not on the bible).
Anyone who uses the bible to form opinions on moral activities... well I just hope that they are only skimming through some parts of that text (and also they need to do some serious reading, and no, not on the bible).

[Resident Atheist]

Badthing,

I’m quite confident that John’s spent plenty of time with others of differing viewpoints (me being one of them). I don’t like to speak for him (John-please correct me if I misstate, here) but I don’t think he is arguing that people without religion are incapable of morality. His argument (I think) would be that although you may not believe in god, you still feel compassion because you are made in god’s image. In his view anything good = god; anything bad = man’s fallibility. It’s quite a nice bit of mental gymnastics to get around blaming a supposedly all-powerful being for creating such a screwed up world.

In this case, I think he’s really asking “when you (a nonbeliever) say it feels GREAT to help someone, why do you feel that way? Is it due to natural selection or a diety?” I think that is a fair question, but unlike John, I think evolution offers a very straightforward explanation for this feeling. In my assessment, John seems to think ‘evolution’ = ‘survival of the fittest’. He then translates ‘survival of the fittest’ to ‘every man for himself’. That is where I believe he errs, and I share your and Chris’ frustration at being unable to explain how ‘feeling compassionate’ can be bred for just like ‘opposable thumbs’. I think Chris has made the start of a very nice explanation above about how this works.

Unlike you, I think using evolution to discuss morality is perfectly fine, as I believe our perceptions of what is ‘moral’ have been shaped by it. As an ambassador for evolution, you should be willing to try to explain to others how it accounts for our current situation, rather than dismissing them glibly (you might want to consider some serious reading on tact, and yes, maybe even the bible).

[Badthing]

Resident Atheist,

"I don’t like to speak for him (John-please correct me if I misstate, here) but I don’t think he is arguing that people without religion are incapable of morality."

He directly questions the motivations of the non-deistic to do morally positive things that do not seemingly have selfish consequences. Though to be fair, he also questions his own potential actions, even though he is a deist (he "hopes" and "believes" he would have helped, essentially like me).

The reason I commented, was that he moves to suggest that letting the man die might be equally moral in the mind of an "evolutionist" (though this premise is based on misunderstandings of evolution).

"In this case, I think he’s really asking “when you (a nonbeliever) say it feels GREAT to help someone, why do you feel that way? Is it due to natural selection or a diety?”"

I had read his clarification, stating his question:

"Does our "gut instinct"/conscience/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, which tells us that the right thing to do is to help the man in the street, reveal an inherent consistency with Darwinian evolution [...]?"

Yes it does. (Nothing ever discovered has been inconsistent with evolution as a whole. Modern evolutionary synthesis is THE single most successful Scientific Theory and is the cornerstone of moden biology. The first person who finds something really provably inconsistent would be quite famous. Not holding my breath here...)

"Or, does it actually betray an allegience to a set of values that are more consistent with a different worldview?"

Not at all. I closed my original comment with reasons why, i.e. the bible (yes I have read it and was in church for quite a few years) is a terrible moral guideline... AS IS EVOLUTION. The difference is, the bible tries and fails while evolution is just a physical system.

I will re-ask his question as thus:

Does our gut instinct to seek revenge on an individual who has, in our perception, wronged us, reveal an inherit consistency with modern evolutionary synthesis?

Yes. Same answer as above.

Or does it actually betray an allegiance to a set of values that are more consistent with a [theistic] worldview?

No. Still no.

Back to quoting RA:

"Unlike you, I think using evolution to discuss morality is perfectly fine, as I believe our perceptions of what is ‘moral’ have been shaped by it."

Discuss all you want, that's fantastic! All of our being was shaped by the forces of evolution. Only, be careful of the conclusions you draw (also make sure you get the facts right - speaking directly of the original "survival of the fittest" comments). Though I may feel love, I may also feel hate. Both are (potentially) inside me. And before I sound like I am playing right into the original author's reasoning, my ability to squelch my hate/rage/greed is also inside me.

Our effective morals are written in our law books and by our societies. Both have different methods of enforcement when the rules are broken. Both differ based on where in the world you go. Both have situational components that vary with time. That said, you will find a union in the sets of morals held by people around the world. This is the sort of common ground we all share, biologically.

I don't want these last few comments regarding moral differences between peoples to insinuate that I am a moral relativist. On the contrary, one's right to assert their life is incontrovertible regardless of the moral bent of the one trying to take it. I am in favor of efforts such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights striving to better codify those morals that we can agree on as being universal and beneficial to all, and in the principles of Humanism.

Also, I am no more or less an ambassador for evolution as is a falling apple an ambassador for gravity. I find the study evolution completely engaging and amazing, but evolution is blind. It does not have our interests in mind. Evolution is as likely to promote X at Y's expense as it is to promote Y at X's expense (humanity has been/is/will be X and/or Y). So just as we do with morals, we go beyond what we find around us in order to promote our common interests.

Anyhoo, I hope I haven't rambled myself off-topic or into any holes here :)
Thanks for the discussion.

[Resident Atheist]

This may be irrelevant splitting of hairs, here, but I don’t think John believes that it matters whether you BELIEVE in god in order to make some moral decisions. I think he has stated in the past that if god exists then everyone can make some moral decisions (deist or non-deist). It’s not what you believe that matters, but what is the real origin of man (god, in his opinion).

That’s why he would look at your statement of compassion feeling GREAT as evidence that god exists. He makes the statement (erroneously, in my opinion) that evolution would lead to immoral choices precisely because he believes the opposite. He thinks that my morality (as an atheist) is proof of god’s existence. (John, help a brotha out here.)

I agree with pretty much everything else in your post, but one more clarification; I refer to you as an ‘ambassador of evolution’ because you are an advocate for the theory and have the desire to convince others of its truth (by posting in blogs), not because you participate in the act, which, as you pointed out, would make little sense.

[chris corwin]

if i might speak for john on this, i can guarantee you he believes that batthing's feeling great about doing Good stuff is proof that god exists: it says so in the bible.

badthing is, apparently, not a jew, and that makes him a gentile.

gentiles have the law written on their hearts by the Creator.

the fact that badthing knows right from wrong is evidience of such a Creator.

to go out on more of a limb:

this is a clue as to why john also beleives that believing in evolution is incompatible with believing in a Creator: the more we're like the animals, and the more there is a biological, rather than spiritual, basis for our beliefs (we ALWAYS act based on beliefs), the less the universe "needs" god, and the more faith is threatened.

i doubt very much that you, john, see this the exact same way -- and i would love to hear a response.

btw: i am jealous that you get to hear ravi z speak.

he's not dumb.

[Badthing]

Re: the last two comments: I thought it might be the case that morals were imposed on me by god, but since that questions the existence and extent of free-will, opinions on which can differ based on your sect, I didn't want to go there.

Also, based on your last comments, there's really no way for me to argue anymore :D

[John]

Glad to see the rousing conversation continues. I will weigh in here, I promise. I just have run and give a talk right now. So, when I get a minute, I'll get into the mix and clarify just a few of the comments offered by all of you who are speaking on my behalf. Or, in the words of RA, I will "help a brotha out." :)

[Steven Carr]

Whenever I see a person who has been hit by disaster, I always ask myself 'What would God do?'

And I realise that God would pass by on the other side and let the guy die.

So I immediately know what is the moral thing to do.

[Steven Carr]

'Does our "gut instinct"/conscience/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, which tells us that the right thing to do is to help the man in the street, reveal an inherent consistency with Darwinian evolution (which is essentially built on the most basic premise of a "me first" mentality)? '

Guess who hasn't got a clue about Darwinian evolution?