Stout explains that social context …show more content…
The first, Stout refers to as the banality of goodness. Unselfishness, or passive altruism, is so common that it goes without notice and is taken for granted. On the other hand, active altruism, like the actions of the good Samaritan, is rare and will always draw the attention of others. The second is similar to the first in that small sacrifices go unnoticed. Minimal self-sacrifice may not look like sacrifice, but a lot of the time, it benefits others greatly. The third, Stout calls naïve realism. It is the sense that our own perceptions reflect reality. When others’ actions are inconsistent with our opinions, we make them out to be selfish.
Over time, as experimental gaming has improved while researching the homo economicus model, researchers have begun to control the results of unselfish behavior and extrinsic rewards. The results against the homo economicus model from these scenarios, have proven predictable across societies and even other cultures. This included a large count of marginal unselfish behaviors that resulted in prosociality, even among …show more content…
It is from the distinction between tort and criminal law that we find two truths. Most people know they should not commit crimes and therefore do not or at least try not to and the state of conscience differs among criminals as their motives are not equally shared by the rest of society. However, Stout’s cost and benefit analysis alongside conscience shows that crime can be deterred if obedience, imitation, and empathy are placed into effect within the legal system. Authority, if it is respected, influences good behavior. Imitation is the human tendency to conform and reduces crime if criminals are placed in upstanding communities. Empathy is shown through law by convincing people that crimes are never victimless. Thus, by a few simple changes to social context, people can change their behavior to unselfish and