Do Darley and Batson have the Correct Interpretation of the Good Samaritan Parable Why or Why not

Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Do Darley and Batson have the Correct Interpretation of the Good Samaritan Parable? Why or Why not?

Introduction

Since conventional times, moral behavior has been used to imply the ability to pursue good and that humans have a primary moral obligation to further what is good at all levels. According to the fundamental definition of morality, an individual who constantly pursues evil is considered immoral and shunned from the society. In other words, morality is directly compared to virtuous behavior. At this point, it can be argued that this perception is flawed because it fails to factor in the situational factors of an individual. From an objective viewpoint, it can be contended that the situational conditions of an individual contribute significantly to the mode of conduct that the same assumes. The definition of morality needs to be aligned to this in order to enhance objectivity and social justice. It is in this regard that this review argues that indeed, Darley and Batson have the correct interpretation of the Good Samaritan parable.

Societal values and virtues are employed in providing guidance and direction to the society. Most importantly, they are imperative in shaping the model behaviors that are assumed by the society. One of the main sources of the fundamental values and virtues is religion. At this point, it should be appreciated that religion has a significant degree of influence on the holistic wellbeing of an individual. In particular, it can be argued that it virtually compels an individual to a certain mode of life. Thus in this consideration, it can be argued that it lacks the fundamental objectivity and can not be used to define morality. By laying great emphasis on religious matters and roles, the Levite and priest failed to provide the much needed assistance to the wounded man. This provides a classic illustration of how religion undermines the pursuance of good behavior.

Further, it should be acknowledged that the situational factors greatly influence the type of behavior that is assumed by an individual. From a practical point of view, it can not be disputed that certain activities are given priority over others. Naturally, human beings tend to focus more on activities that enhance their individual worth. From a consequentiality viewpoint, it can be argued that this is ethically right because such activities have beneficial effects. Usually, external societal forces also determine the kind of behavior that individual assume.

With regard to the context of the Good Samaritan, Harman cites Darley and Batson who posit that the Levite and priest were possibly rushing to attend to religious matters (324). It is certain that this was their areas of priority because they derived beneficial effects from the same. Not only did they get material benefits from the same, but the also got social approval from this. Material benefits in this respect were basic for survival and social approval enhanced their individual worth and social acceptance. Logically, it is true that they would have preferred attending to these concerns to helping the wounded man.

Arguably, the Good Samaritan was also not compelled by any external factors to pursue the perceived virtuous act. Rather, he was able to help the wounded man because he did not have immediate business to attend to. Moreover, considering the fact that he was not religious, he did not have immediate responsibilities to attend to. At this point, it can be speculated that if he would have had other priority matters to attend to; it is unlikely that he would have helped the wounded man. This is well exemplified by the findings of the experiment that was designed by Darley and Batson (Harman 324).

Furthermore, it is probable that his lack of a religious background made him define virtuous behavior in different manner. Thus it can be speculated that he was merely acting according to his personal understanding of good morals. Of great reference is the fact that the Good Samaritan was not in a hurry to attend to other issues. He had sufficient time and could even spare some to attend to matters that were not in his schedule. If the priest and Levite had extra time, it can be argued that hey would possibly behave in a similar manner too.

Conclusion

The societal definition of good values and virtuous behavior is influenced by various factors. Its failure to include situational factors can be considered to have compromised objectivity. As it has come out from the study, situational factors play a critical role in influencing the behavior that individuals assume under different conditions. Notably, this explains why the priest and Levite did no behave like the Good Samaritan. From a consequentialist standpoint, pursuance of personal good is justified. Most importantly, it is certain external factors such as social responsibilities directly affect the way humans behave too. It is in this consideration that this paper concludes by ascertaining that Darley and Batson have a correct interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Work Cited

Gilbert, Harman. Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 99 (1999): 315-331.