Strangers in Need

Should you be required to help people in need?

The kindness of strangers, by Ronald P. Sokol, Commentary, International Herald Tribune: France Doug Coombs, 48, an expert skier, shoots down a narrow path high in the French Alps. A friend preceding him misses a turn and slips over a precipice. Coombs follows to the edge of the cliff, peers down hoping to help. Then the snow gives way, and he, too, falls to his death.

Lincoln Hall, 50, an Australian climbing Mount Everest, is abandoned by his team, who think he has no chance of survival. Other climbers come along, find him alive and take him down the mountain. Hall survives.

David Sharp, 34, an Englishman, gets to the top of Everest, then begins his descent through the low-oxygen "death zone." As he sits cross-legged and incoherent in a snow cave, 40 climbers pass by - and leave him to die. One climber stops briefly and gives him some oxygen. No one tries to save Sharp or stay with him until the end.

Did the climbers who saw Sharp have a legal duty to try to help him? It is a truism that a lawyer's first answer is almost always another question. ... To what law must we look?

If we ask whether Coombs had a legal duty to go to the edge of a precipice in the French Alps, we must look to French law. The French criminal code makes it a crime not to help a person in need of assistance when help can be provided at no risk to oneself.

As Coombs was American, we might want to know what American law says. It is based on Common Law, which says that the law does not compel active benevolence. The traditional English view is that one has no duty to be a good Samaritan. ...

What is strange is that different Western cultures should reach opposite conclusions on such a fundamental question. Underlying the legal issue, of course, lies a moral one. ... Should we conclude that the English rule reflects a less morally developed stance than the French rule? It is not apparent why people should differ over whether there is an affirmative duty to help others. That they should differ over when the duty arises - that is, under what circumstances the duty comes into play - strikes me as normal. Clearly there is no legal duty to help my neighbor prepare for his trip to Honolulu. But if I find him alone on a beach with a broken leg and I am there with my cell phone, can I legally walk away and leave him without even phoning for help? The Common Law rule is that I have no duty to phone for help. ...

Did the Everest climbers owe a duty of care to David Sharp? Under French law, clearly yes, and his heirs could sue for damages... They could be found criminally liable as well. Under traditional English and American rules, there was no such duty...

Of course people should help, but I am not in favor of a law compelling people to do so. There is always an opportunity cost to helping -- if I stop and help you fix a flat tire, I may be late for an important meeting. How do we compare the costs to the person helping to the benefits received by the person in need of help in assessing whether someone should be required to help? Perhaps it's just the economist in me and there is another approach to this problem, but in general this seems like a hard problem to overcome. Do we require help whenever there is a net benefit? Net benefit to whom, and who calculates the interpersonal costs and benefits, you, me, or someone else?

Comments

[Holly W.]

I'm not sure about the economic arguments here, but it seems to me that if you see a person with a flat tire, you can pretty safely drive by if you're genuinely in a hurry -- but if they're in real, life-threatening trouble, don't you have some ethical obligation to offer aid, or at least succor? I don't think that's especially calculable in dollars; it's more a question of what you can live with. If you could have helped someone but didn't, is there any dollar amount that could make up for the guilt? And if someone could have helped your spouse, or your child, but didn't, doesn't the world look like a cold and horrible place? I think the French are trying to fight against a creeping social norm that says it's OK to ignore people in need because one's own achievements are much more important -- passing a law may or may not be the right way to go about it, but I have to applaud the intention, myself.

When I read Jon Krakauer's book about the disastrous 1995-1996 season on Everest, the story that most resonated with me was that of David Breashears and his film crew, who were making an IMAX movie, but dropped everything to help the other climbers. They had to come back the next year to finish their job, which was hideously expensive, so economics would say they should have stuck with what they were doing for themselves -- but I bet they all sleep well at night.

[CalculatedRisk]

There is a significant problem of asymmetrical information too. Maybe someone is in serious trouble, but appears OK to the passerby.

Or the inverse: A few years ago, in wintery condition in the mountains, I passed a couple that was clearly unprepared for the conditions and appeared unfit for the strenous hike to safety. I talked with them for a few minutes, and they seemed totally confident in their abilities. I guess they were right - they survived without my help. But I did contact the Rangers and they checked up on them to provide possible assistance.

What if they had died and I hadn't found a Ranger to alert? Would I be legally liable in France, even though the hikers refused my aid? It would probably have looked bad for me in court, since there were definite opportunity costs in helping (I was destination bound).

I always try to help (there is a psychological reward for helping people in need), and I agree that a law doesn't make sense.

[Winslow R.]

Comparing how France and England treat their 'least able' correlates well to how they expect you to treat people in need. That one system may be 'wrong' is only readily apparent when you have the two systems interacting in the same situation.

'Free marketeers' can take advantage of the discountinuity of global moral enforcement and optimize their individual outcomes. Mt. Everest may be the last 'free market' commercial destination where services are exchanged and the strong survive and the weak literally perish. How would you like to work in such a place?

After much global discussion with Sir Hillary included, 'group morality' may impose itself even in this remote corner of the world and the final 'free market' will be tamed.

[Kent]

Well, here's a Canadian who stopped. From CBC -

Canadian who helped fellow mountaineer on Everest never hesitated
Last Updated Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:30:43 EDT
CBC News

Canadian Andrew Brash had the summit in sight and was just 200 metres away from the top of the world's highest mountain, when he ditched his dream of conquering Mount Everest so he could help rescue a fellow climber from Australia.

That decision earned Brash, a Calgary resident, worldwide acclaim. But to hear him tell it there was really no choice.

"When I saw Lincholn sitting on the ridge, I knew our trip was over," he said. "I knew what we were going to do."

Brash and his team stopped when they found fellow mountaineer Lincholn Hall with no gloves and no hat, just sitting on the edge of a cliff in a thin shirt. His Sherpas left him for dead the night before, thinking he had died from brain swelling on his way down from the summit.

At first, Brash thought Hall would surely die: his hands were white and he kept trying to jump over the side of a huge precipice.

"He would lunge for the base, he wanted to jump off it. We had to actually pin him down and hold on to him."

The incident came just days after about 40 climbers offered no help to a British mountaineer dying on the side of Everest.

Brash still doesn't understand why that happened. "I find it hard to believe no one stopped."

It's clear Lincholn Hall would have died on the side of Everest if not for the help of strangers.

Brash says he had to help, even though he was so close to the top.

"We really felt like we would have got to the top that day, but then we met Lincholn. But that's OK, Lincholn has got a family, and I'm glad he's still around."

[Robert]

Thanks Mark for bringing this forward. I have often thought precisely of this French statute that obliges one to help another in danger, and by extension the implications for social policy. Perhaps, I am a mis-guided optimist, but I believe that most [french] people and probably most non-urbanites wherever would do the right thing instinctively and not because they are obliged to by law. But by codifying it, it gives society recourse to take those to task who might willfully & egregiously ignore the life-threatening welfare of others.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mark . . .

Among Americans, myself included, I find self-absorption is common. We, as humans, crave a connection and often do all that we can to avoid an authentic one. We lack love for our neighbors. Friends are rarely close. Families may be barely familiar. Our intimates can be people that do not know us well. Americans frequently engage in activities hoping to build relations, though their attempts are habitually superficial. Our pace is fast and furious; and so we are. I am uncertain whether I find this abhorrent or just heartbreaking.

I do think it fascinating that the French are willing to help each other. It is so important to them they require it by law. While I am not certain that a regulation necessitating that we assist is what I desire, I do know that I wish we were benevolent enough to always demonstrate care.

[lonesome moderate]

It seems likely to me that this difference stems largely from the Reformation, and the individualistic Protestant ethic that eventually came to dominate Britain and most of its formal colonies, while the western half of the continent remained largely Catholic. The tradeoff between individual responsibility and trying to care for the greater good has always been a great part of the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[calmo]

Those tricky unwritten moral obligations and those verbose technical legal obligations.
And great mountain climbing adventures...no crossing the ice flows, no rescues at sea...must be a bunch of land lubbers here. (maybe not --no crossing deserts, no caved in mine shafts, no daring rescues from the 9th floor of the apartment building...)

Frosty, the stranger (pointedly so) over there in the snow bank, is about to perish unless you come to his aid.
It's a pain in the ass, but it's the right thing to do.
Seriously, the case is not structured so that you perish in aiding him. We expect you to help within reason. (No thoughtless self-sacrifices please.) You want to go down that path where we figure out how much you're willing to sacrifice to save Frosty? a finger or two but not a hand? an arm if it's your daughter but not both legs? a fingernail if it's your ex-wife but not from your right hand?
It's a spurious path people. You help because you're a compassionate person --or not because you're callous. The calculation of how much, is largely arm-chair quarterbacking for those who think there is some moral calculus worth the trouble. No one else uses it --imagine having this trouble while Frosty freezes.
So let's skip the moral obligation quandry, there is none.
But because Frosty and his ilk were littering the mountainside with corpses, we thought we'd create a legal obligation to come to their rescue. (Much like the Aussies creating a legal obligation to vote, much to everyone's embarassament.)
Just because Frosty is a stranger suggests that your moral obligations (not my favorite expression, people, how about 'standards of conduct'? 'doin the right thing'? 'being a good person'?) are different, more lax, down right loose and devil may care maybe.
He could be an imposter and be out to rob you of your prized woolen socks! What if it were your dreaded mother-in-law --does it make a difference? The right thing to do is come to the person's aid.
Why is this so tricky? Is it because when you do save your dreaded mother-in-law, it costs you both legs and she swears she'll look after you for the rest of her life? An unacceptable cost, sure. But the right thing to do nonetheless, however brainless and punishing for you and even the entire Universe. If you leave her in the snow bank, we know you didn't do the Good deed. We know you acted in your self-interest which saved both your legs. It may have been good (advantageous) for you, but not, a good (exemplary, moral) act.

[a]

To me, the argument for/against the French law is deeply rooted in the culture. If you don't beleive in solidarity and our obligation to our fellow human being, you will feel against a law that compells you to behave that way (but of course as a member of a civil society, you will accept other laws). For at the end, law refelcts what is required at a minimum for the members of a society to behave.

So the French think that at a minimum, you are required to help people to save their lives if it is "easy" for you to do so. It is very interesting and I have to seek the origin of this law and how people's way of thinking and behaving have been shaped by it.

For one, I have been quite impressed at the solidarity of the French people on Strike. The protest against CFE (the employment law proposed for the youth) was not only done by the young students on campus, but actively participated by workers from public sectors who has no job security problems at all!!! It seems to me that they acted collectively to "save the job security of the future generations" (save the life of a starnger) when there is no in-convenience to them.

Without their active participation, the government would not back down on the CFE laws.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6540&u=99|4|...

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Bathing
New York City--Central Park, The Pool.

A striking relevant post and thread of comments to think about carefully :)

[a]

Another thing I have been thinking about is the "Indifference". Is it an evil acgt that should be regulated by laws to be minimum?

Are we more hurt by the evil brutality of the few, or by the indifference of the majority of otherwise "good" or ordinary people?

As a society as we progress, is it bad at all the make indifference a crime? And make sense of responsibility a requirement to be a member of the civil society?

It is also interesting that for the French schools, Social contract is the foundation of democracy; while for US it is individual freedom. (I might be wrong or over-simplifing)

[anne]

Yes; there is a play over positive and negative democracy, liberty, that Isaiah Berlin addressed:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/29/specials/berlin-obit.html

November 7, 1997

Isaiah Berlin, Philosopher and Pluralist
By MARILYN BERGER

Sir Isaiah's 1959 essay, ''Two Concepts of Liberty,'' is considered a major contribution to political theory. In it, he made a distinction between negative liberty, that which the individual must be allowed to enjoy without state interference, and positive liberty, that which the state permits by imposing regulations that, by necessity, limit some freedoms in the name of greater liberty for all. He argued that both kinds of liberty were required for a just society....

[anne]

The question becomes a balance "between negative liberty, that which the individual must be allowed to enjoy without state interference, and positive liberty, that which the state permits by imposing regulations that, by necessity, limit some freedoms in the name of greater liberty for all."

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear a . . .

It is no surprise to me that your points and presupposing are salient to me. Each of your comments mentions what I too find fascinating. The structure of society in America I feel is quite the contrary to some of the Constitutional themes. We speak of working together and being United States; however rarely is that the case. This phenomenon is evident in businesses, governments, and schools.

I observe that Americans set standards, as though these are solutions and will unify us; yet, they seem to separate us further. I agree that if people within a country truly believe in a principle, then establish it as law, will not feel intrusive.

I am curious, and only understand through reading which I feel often offers a skewed perspective, in other countries, such as France, do people actually honor the law? This may be minor; nevertheless, if I see one more person flagrantly litter, I am going to . . . do nothing other than vent to friends and family. I hope that at some point I will break and say something. I do not want to use words that are experienced as confrontational or highly critical. I suspect the effect I desire will not be realized if my words are offensive. Still, I do want to say something.

Which takes me to my last thoughts on yours a. “Indifference”; please tell me that I am correct in thinking this is unique to America? Years ago, I became very sensitive to the statement “I do not care.” I work hard not to use what is so much a part of American lexicon. For me, that is the saddest state, and that people in this country say the sentence so often to me, only serves to secure that stance. Yiccih!

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

[a]

Sorry to disappoint people who found the French law appealing (I do). Here is a draft on Wikipedia's French website about the origin of this law:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-assistance_%C3%A0_personne_en_danger

"Or, punir un individu pour ne pas avoir secouru quelqu'un est une interdiction de s'abstenir. Pendant longtemps, il n'existait donc pas d'obligation légale de porter secours. Il a fallu attendre Vichy pour qu'une telle obligation soit instaurée ; en effet, le gouvernement français voyait d'un mauvais œil la passivité des Français envers les Allemands victimes des actes de la Résistance."
Google translation goes:
"It should have been awaited Vichy so that such an obligation is founded; indeed, the French government saw of an evil eye the passivity of the French towards the Germans victims of the acts of Resistance. "

So, Germany and Andorra are the two other countries that have such law.

Sorry.

But today every French knows the law and respect it. I don't know how much the law affects people's behavior, but French people believe that they do help people in danger most of the time.

[a]

As for indifference towards to people, I think Chinese are quite bad too: if you drive on a road in China and ran out of gas or have mechanic problems, you will have to wait for years till someone stops to offer help. It is notorious.

Is it possible to see someone sick and agonizing on the strret and everyone just passes by without offering any help? Yes, it has been reported in the newspaper too...

Ah, indifference to other people is our curse.

[anne]

Wonderful posts, "A" :) I would not have thought to look to the origin of the French law, but should always look to origins. The law may be best at affecting attitude which is a critical step at responsibility. There is much to think here.

[anne]

A while ago, I began to use Martin Luther King's sermon on the "Good Samaritan" and to my surprise students return to it repeatedly in reference.

[anne]

Actually, King referred to the "Good Samaritan" parable frequently but I never gave the parable much thought until a Nigerian student borrowed a book of King's sermons from me and read the "Good Samaritan" over and over.

[a]

"Good Samaritan" ... thanks Anne, I have to check it out myself, :).