Nearly everyday and everywhere someone will live harshly with problems. In such situations, we face two choices—either to aggravate their problems with a spirit of criticism or to save their lives with a spirit of God. To help or not is our own rights.
In the society, if only one person is present at an emergency, he dose carry all of the responsibility to deal with it. Because he feel that it is his guilt for not acting and he will bear all of the blame that accrues for nonintervention.
If others are present, the onus of responsibility is diffused, and the finger points less directly at any one person. A potential helper, confronted with a situation in which another may be in need of assistance, was posited to look to the reactions of others to help. The potential cost of making an inappropriate response-such as embarrassment and shame-increases as the number of bystanders increases.
Another aspect, people are expected to help the victim with the evidence of the present of others. Furthermore, the presence of non-helping bystanders enhances the attention of arriving onlookers, that will strengthen the connection between the helper and victim. Nevertheless, the helper is being assigned greater responsibility. Such “confusion of responsibility” would represent a perceived social cost to help others.
The realistic helpfulness-situation explain that perhaps part of our being(especially the non-helping bystanders) should learn to help others. Also it is critical to being authentically human-“very present help in time of trouble is the real helper.”