Hmm... I don't see "people" saying that.
Hmm… I don't see "people" saying that.
Guys, have you read this ?
It isn’t ignoring, it’s not daring. If one were to encounter a Nanjing judge, one would be screwed.
[Note: "Nanjing judge" refers to the infamous 2006 case of a man named Peng Yu who helped a woman to the hospital after she had fallen only to have the old woman accuse him of knocking her down. The Nanjing judge in that case ultimately ruled that common sense dictated that only the person who hit her would take her to the hospital, setting a precedent that continues only further discourages and reinforces many Chinese people's wariness to help others in similar situations.]
Everyone in those news comments are talking about it. It's wise to call the Human Rights for that.
First the American sickos after Travis' execution, now this…
There is a lot going on in your head: Is the situation really what I think it is? Am I making a fool of myself if I intervene? Do I risk putting myself in danger? The person getting hassled looks drunk, is he victim or did he start it. Would it be better to get help or to intervene? Will someone help me if I do intervene?
Pessimeister said:Psychologists can refer to this idea of "diffusion of responsibility" and whatnot, but for me, we are human first and foremost and it's a just fundamental failure of humanism and individual morality to walk past something like that and not act.
It have nothing to do with empathy.
I'll save that for the more 'learn-ed' people around me.Feel free to replace what you said to "A methodical and empirical study of the phenomenon known as the "Bystander Effect" has shown…"
Are you joking? Or are you speaking from some kind of remote tower of study so above humanity where you can make statements like this? It has everything to do with empathy: That instinctive feeling and urge to react to the visible suffering of your fellow human beings around you. Clearly, the people who saw this child and simply passed by - failed on a fundamental level to demonstrate empathy.
I wonder if it is a risk versus reward thing, too many people are looking after themselves more than others. That said i wouldnt even try to do cpr without a first aid kit because of the possibility of getting hepatitis. I guess that is something i need to work on. It is a religious thing for me btw(the last part that is).
Court cases like that certainly dont encourage people to help."Nanjing judge" refers to the infamous 2006 case of a man named Peng Yu who helped a woman to the hospital after she had fallen only to have the old woman accuse him of knocking her down.
The Nanjing judge in that case ultimately ruled that common sense dictated that only the person who hit her would take her to the hospital, setting a precedent that continues only further discourages and reinforces many Chinese people's wariness to help others in similar situations.
If you want to blend in cognition at all the rolemodel of the individual matters. A person who identify themselves as "I am someone who help" is more likely to do so.
It's also completely different if you have the time to reflect and act and having no time to reflect and still act. Some religions doesn't seem to change the will to help despite having both time and resources to do so and may even disencourage helping. This seems to be related to the devaluation of human responsibility, "leave it to God, let God decide" which is very popular in some regions.
It has everything to do with empathy: That instinctive feeling and urge to react to the visible suffering of your fellow human beings around you.
Empathy is not a visible trait, it's an internal process. There's a difference between not having empathy and not acting on it.
Most human beings in this world feel empathy when they witness the suffering of others.
Pretty basic stuff, really.
I agree. However the devaluation of human responsibility isnt common in most christian circles, even in catholicism. Like in my encounter as a youth with catholicism, i had a mental illness back then, they dont help because that is not their area of expertise.
I remember a Swedish television show in which they put it to test and put a robbery in daylight in which an older woman was attacked when she was sitting on a bench on a plaza. They repeated the experiment over and over without anyone reacting.
The gruesomeness of the situation seems to matter. The more out of place and extreme the event the more likely bystanders freeze and see if someone else acts. When no one does they follow the herd (not act).
Catholocism have a long tradition of encouraging action. Calvinistic and some Lutheran disecourage instead.
Sure - notice I used the word "demonstrate" though, which acts as a verb and implies "action". I'm not implying an either or situation and you don't have to tell me what empathy is or how it works.
I'm also glad that it's all basic and you've got it all figured out. Good job.
If I saw this kind of behaviour occur in my city, not only would I have to conclude a lack of demonstrated empathy in the citizens that passed by, but also at some deeper level, a communal failure to instill the values which help an individual perceive suffering in their fellow humans and to act to alleviate that if they can.
I have never heard of those. @_@ Maybe because they are small here in Australia if they are here at all. Though there are always a lot of christian cults out there.
In general, it seems that human life mean less in eastern nations than western nations.