Why the Law Should Not Require Us to Help One Another

I went into law for a very specific reason and it wasn’t to be a lawyer. I was drawn to the law because I wanted to learn the framework we humans devised to govern our lives and behaviors. As someone who is constantly seeking to gain a deeper understanding of human nature and the human condition, I have found that examining aspects of our legal system is one of the best ways to perform a vivisection on human social systems.

Although some of us might take the pervasiveness and power of our legal system for granted, it is a fact that the system of laws we have created governs every aspect of our lives – from the quality of the air we breathe to what kind of behavior is permissible when we’re in the privacy of our own homes. And our legal system regulates us from the moment we are born until the moment we die. Put another way, the law functions as the skeletal system of our society, providing the basic structure and support that give definition and shape to our individual and collective experiences.

The law most obviously influences our behavior by telling what activities are legal and what activities are illegal. But telling us what will land us in court is far from the only way the law shapes our behavior. Our laws also tell us who we are – they mirror back to us what we believe about each other. The impact on our lives and belief systems of this latter function of the law – the law’s mirror function – cannot be overstated. In fact, I think that what the law tells us about ourselves, by way of the assumptions regarding human nature upon which we base our laws, is just as, if not more, influential when it comes to human behavior than what the law actually requires us to do or refrain from doing.

A good example of a law that sends a very clear message about what the powers that be believe when it comes to the potential of human beings is the “duty to rescue” statute. As an initial matter, and as a general rule, our legal system does not require us to help each other. We can walk by a person being mugged and not do a damn thing to intervene if we don’t want to, even if we are capable of preventing harm to another. But, there are ten states where this is not the case. These ten states have “duty to rescue” statutes that require you to assist someone else if you witness a crime, are capable of assisting, and can do so without endangering yourself. In these ten states, if you fail to rescue a person in need, and you are capable of doing so without a threat to yourself, you are usually criminally punished with a misdemeanor and fined roughly a few hundred bucks.

I strongly oppose these statutes. But, I am not opposed to “duty to rescue” statutes because I think we should all be free to do whatever we please whenever we want. I also don’t have disdain for these laws because I think we should all be supremely selfish and just look out for ourselves alone. No, these statutes repulse me because I think they’re insulting.

“Duty to rescue” statutes are premised on the unflattering proposition that humans are selfish creatures who will not help each other without the threat of criminal punishment. I find this assumption offensive and, most importantly, this assumption is incorrect and unhelpful. Animal and human behaviorist experts have established that humans, more often than not, do have empathy and concern for their fellows and that we are capable of and inclined to perform heroic acts of altruism in the absence of coercive external forces or threats of punishment. Therefore, not only are these laws insulting, they also badly miss the mark when it comes to who and what we are.

But, you might ask, why does any of this matter? Why does it matter if the law sends us negative messages to us regarding who and what we are? Why does it matter that the law is based on an inaccurate model of human behavior? Well, I believe it matters for at least two main reasons.

First, it is a basic principle that people tend to perform according to the expectations or levels we set for them. In other words, what other people believe about us matters. People don’t become better or kinder people when they are told they are selfish and bad people. People become better and kinder people when someone else sees and believes in the good in them. As James Russell Lowell so nicely put it, “the surest plan to make a man is, think him so.” In other words, the best way to encourage us to care more for one another is to tap into that part of human beings that already does so rather than punishing us for failing to do so.

When others have faith in us, we develop greater faith in ourselves and, ultimately, we become better and more capable human beings. Conversely, if we are constantly doubted, underestimated, and sent the message that we are selfish and horrid creatures, not only does our potential for greatness go unrealized, but we are also more likely to behave accordingly. “Duty to rescue” statutes completely overlook our inherent potential and inclination to care for one another. Rather than somehow incentivizing us to develop and operate out of this potential, the law myopically focuses exclusively on the worst in us. And our faith in ourselves and each other, and consequently our ability to be our best, is diminished if not stifled entirely.

The second reason why it matters that our laws are based on an accurate models of human behavior is that laws that are based on incorrect assumptions regarding human nature aren’t effective. The thing is that there is already tremendous social pressure to respond and provide aid to someone in distress – if not by intervening, then at least by calling the police. The person who will only assist another in danger under threat of a criminal sanction would most likely not be the kind of person who has much respect for the threat of a criminal sanction to begin with. Therefore, it is not surprising that these laws have shown to have at most negligible success. If such laws fail to achieve their very purposes, it’s time to adopt a different approach if we want to encourage people to help each other. Perhaps we should consider an approach where we incentivize and foster altruistic behavior, rather than anticipating and threatening to punish the worst in us.

There is a lot more I want to write when it comes to the meaning and power of our laws, and I am still wrapping my brain around my newfound belief in the idea that the most powerful aspect of the law is not what the text of the law says, but, instead, it is what the law says about us – the assumptions regarding human nature that must exist in order to create the law in the first place – the premises upon which the law is based and, specifically, the premises regarding human nature. In other words, perhaps the most powerful way the law shapes our behavior is through the unspoken messages it sends that reflect what the powers that be believe about us.

We can discover what the law believes about humans and human nature and human potential by digging beneath the surface of the law and examining what policymakers must believe about human beings in order to determine that a certain law is necessary and useful. Too often our laws underestimate us and stifle our potential. It would be a vast improvement if our legal system reflected back to us that we are good, cooperative, and, at times, even selfless creatures. Admittedly, I’m not yet sure what this would look like. But I do know that while we can be grotesque, we humans are also capable of being tremendously amazing and loving creatures. And I know we need laws that stimulate and nudge us to act out of that part of ourselves, rather than laws that assume the worst about us.