Not at all. But that’s just another example of other people’s interests not being compatible with your own, and choosing to trick them into actions that they wouldn’t take if they knew the truth.
In that situation, you are their enemy, and vice versa.
Actually, what yelling “fire” in that situation does most effectively is get the attention of a group. Fire individually endangers every passerby, so they’re motivated to assess the situation and call the fire department. Whereas in a moderately well-traveled area, the bystander effect can yield tragedy.
It’s (probably) not against a passerby’s interest to join a dozen other people in calling the fire department and/or serving to scare off a would-be attacker with excess attention, unless the passerby is a sociopath (or unless the passerby is never going to find out about the assault and you agree with pjeby on preferences being about the map only). It’s only against their interests to stop and see what’s going on and try to help if, in so doing, they put themselves in danger, and they don’t care about the victim in particular. Yelling “fire” gets the attention of multiple people and reduces the danger.
So every helpful passerby gets to think, “Well, I am certainly a good person and would have helped even if she had yelled “rape”, but it’s a good thing she yelled “fire”, because if she hadn’t, these other self-interested jerks would have just walked right by and then I would have been in trouble and so would she.” No enmity is required, just psychological facts.
Or people want to avoid the personal risk without gain of confronting a potentially violent rapist, and would choose to not become involved if they knew the reality of the situation.
I’m sure few people want to consider the possibility that such considerations motivate them, and I’m equally sure that many people are in actuality motivated by them.
Not at all. But that’s just another example of other people’s interests not being compatible with your own, and choosing to trick them into actions that they wouldn’t take if they knew the truth.
In that situation, you are their enemy, and vice versa.
Actually, what yelling “fire” in that situation does most effectively is get the attention of a group. Fire individually endangers every passerby, so they’re motivated to assess the situation and call the fire department. Whereas in a moderately well-traveled area, the bystander effect can yield tragedy.
It’s (probably) not against a passerby’s interest to join a dozen other people in calling the fire department and/or serving to scare off a would-be attacker with excess attention, unless the passerby is a sociopath (or unless the passerby is never going to find out about the assault and you agree with pjeby on preferences being about the map only). It’s only against their interests to stop and see what’s going on and try to help if, in so doing, they put themselves in danger, and they don’t care about the victim in particular. Yelling “fire” gets the attention of multiple people and reduces the danger.
So every helpful passerby gets to think, “Well, I am certainly a good person and would have helped even if she had yelled “rape”, but it’s a good thing she yelled “fire”, because if she hadn’t, these other self-interested jerks would have just walked right by and then I would have been in trouble and so would she.” No enmity is required, just psychological facts.
Or people want to avoid the personal risk without gain of confronting a potentially violent rapist, and would choose to not become involved if they knew the reality of the situation.
I’m sure few people want to consider the possibility that such considerations motivate them, and I’m equally sure that many people are in actuality motivated by them.