Argument On The Bystander Effect

The world is quickly becoming a more dangerous place everyday. Approximately 25,961 crimes happen every day in the U.S, many of which are witnessed by individuals at the scene of the crime. However, the sad reality is that those people are more concerned with recording the event on their phone than actually helping the one in need. A number of studies have been performed, and it has been discovered that there is a physiological phenomenon known as the bystander effect(Levine,”Rethinking”). The bystander effect occurs when someone is in need, there are others to witness their need, but they do nothing(Levine,”Rethinking”). Through experimentation it has been determined that the dependent variable in whether the witness will intervene or not

So why should he listen to his morals? Simply because it is right. Ask the question: what does it mean to be right? It means that there are absolute rights that cannot and will not be changed. A very common argument against absolute rights is that they say that there are no absolutes in such a complex universe. A quite comical response is: are you absolutely sure? Think of the morals of christians, as well of the morals of the nazis. Are the morals of christians considered “more right” than that of the nazis? Of course they are. All people know the difference between right and wrong, even young children who have not yet been “taught” right and wrong are able to distinguish between the two. To know what is right and what is wrong one must have a ruler to measure by(Lewis,15). This ruler is Jesus Christ. He is flawless and is therefore a perfect example of what is right, anything against this perfect template is wrong. There is only one template that is right, only one right, an absolute right. Besides, if everything against the absolute right is wrong, then not listening to what is right is wrong. Who truly wants to be

We are commanded by God himself to “ Love thy neighbor as thyself”. Everyone on Earth is everyone else 's neighbor, therefore commanding everyone to love even the bitterest of enemies. Take into account the parable of the good samaritan. A Jew(Henry,753) was walking down a road and was ambushed by robbers who took all his belongings and beat him half to death, leaving him on the side of the road to die. Two men who were considered amongst the most righteous in their cities passed by the dying man. However, a samaritan, who was a sworn enemy of the Jews(Henry, 753), stopped and gave the man medical attention using expensive wines and oils on the man’s wounds. The samaritan then put him on his own donkey and brought him to an inn, and left two day’s worth of pay with the innkeeper to use to take care of the man(“Good”). This samaritan had no reason to help, in fact it would have been acceptable if he simply finished the man off, for they were bitter enemies. However, the samaritan man had love in his heart and obeyed the commands of moral law even though he had no reason to and couldn’t afford to either. What we can learn from the good samaritan is that doing the right thing often corresponds with moral law, and that intervention falls within the definition of the right thing to