What do you think?
Rate this book
The Samaritan's Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor?
Politics has become a synonym for all that is dirty, corrupt, dishonest, compromising, and wrong. For many people, politics seems not only remote from their daily lives but abhorrent to their personal values. Outside of the rare inspirational politician or social movement, politics is a wasteland of apathy and disinterest.
It wasn't always this way. For Americans who came of age shortly after World War II, politics was a field of dreams. Democracy promised to cure the world's ills. But starting in the late seventies, conservative economists promoted self-interest as the source of all good, and their view became public policy. Government's main role was no longer to help people, but to get out of the way of personal ambition. Politics turned mean and citizens turned away.
In this moving and powerful blend of political essay and reportage, award-winning political scientist Deborah Stone argues that democracy depends on altruism, not self-interest. The merchants of self-interest have divorced us from what we know in our we care about other people and go out of our way to help them. Altruism is such a robust motive that we commonly lie, cheat, steal, and break laws to do right by others. "After 3:30, you're a private citizen," one home health aide told Stone, explaining why she was willing to risk her job to care for a man the government wanted to cut off from Medicare.
The Samaritan's Dilemma calls on us to restore the public sphere as a place where citizens can fulfill their moral aspirations. If government helps the neighbors, citizens will once again want to help govern. With unforgettable stories of how real people think and feel when they practice kindness, Stone shows that everyday altruism is the premier school for citizenship. Helping others shows people their common humanity and their power to make a difference.
At a time when millions of citizens ache to put the Bush and Reagan era behind us and feel proud of their government, Deborah Stone offers an enormously hopeful vision of politics.
It wasn't always this way. For Americans who came of age shortly after World War II, politics was a field of dreams. Democracy promised to cure the world's ills. But starting in the late seventies, conservative economists promoted self-interest as the source of all good, and their view became public policy. Government's main role was no longer to help people, but to get out of the way of personal ambition. Politics turned mean and citizens turned away.
In this moving and powerful blend of political essay and reportage, award-winning political scientist Deborah Stone argues that democracy depends on altruism, not self-interest. The merchants of self-interest have divorced us from what we know in our we care about other people and go out of our way to help them. Altruism is such a robust motive that we commonly lie, cheat, steal, and break laws to do right by others. "After 3:30, you're a private citizen," one home health aide told Stone, explaining why she was willing to risk her job to care for a man the government wanted to cut off from Medicare.
The Samaritan's Dilemma calls on us to restore the public sphere as a place where citizens can fulfill their moral aspirations. If government helps the neighbors, citizens will once again want to help govern. With unforgettable stories of how real people think and feel when they practice kindness, Stone shows that everyday altruism is the premier school for citizenship. Helping others shows people their common humanity and their power to make a difference.
At a time when millions of citizens ache to put the Bush and Reagan era behind us and feel proud of their government, Deborah Stone offers an enormously hopeful vision of politics.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published June 30, 2008
7 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 14, 2008
The Samaritan’s Dilemma is a problem that people face when trying to help the poor. In many cases, the effort to help the poor can give them incentives to continue in behavior that keeps them in poverty. Our past welfare that allocated more money for single-family homes ensured that poor children would be denied a live in father so that the mother could gain more benefits. This is not in dispute with anyone serious – except Deborah Stone, author of the new book entitled, The Samaritan’s Dilemma. Stone tries to reshape the argument by simply ignoring the past performance of government welfare programs.
Early in her book, Stone lays the groundwork for her uphill and mendacious battle. She starts by mocking Reagan’s call for an end to confiscatory and inefficient government actions. She mocks and belittles Nobel winning Economists like Milton Friedman who shoe empirically that government should not be the welfare provider for the people. She wants to recall the glory days of the “New Deal” and “The Great Society” without a serious look at the vast harm those programs did to the people that worked to fund them. Nor does she seem to understand that the trillion dollars confiscated from workers to fund poverty programs did little to elevate poverty or the conditions that lead to poverty.
No, in Stone’s world the Government is the solution and we workers are the cogs that keep the government going for the benefit of the poor. In a messed up world the poor are therefore more valued than those that seek to better their lives through education and hard work. Her failure to see any government failure proves that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals will believe them. Read this nonsense for yourself.
Early in her book, Stone lays the groundwork for her uphill and mendacious battle. She starts by mocking Reagan’s call for an end to confiscatory and inefficient government actions. She mocks and belittles Nobel winning Economists like Milton Friedman who shoe empirically that government should not be the welfare provider for the people. She wants to recall the glory days of the “New Deal” and “The Great Society” without a serious look at the vast harm those programs did to the people that worked to fund them. Nor does she seem to understand that the trillion dollars confiscated from workers to fund poverty programs did little to elevate poverty or the conditions that lead to poverty.
No, in Stone’s world the Government is the solution and we workers are the cogs that keep the government going for the benefit of the poor. In a messed up world the poor are therefore more valued than those that seek to better their lives through education and hard work. Her failure to see any government failure proves that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals will believe them. Read this nonsense for yourself.
July 4, 2018
Excellent! Deborah Stone's The Samaritan's Dilemma (2008) argues that helping others is the right thing to do as a matter of public morality. She reviews seven bad arguments against offering help. I'll touch on just one.
One bad argument is the attack on the so-called entitlement attitude. She cites Lawrence Mead as someone who argues against what he sees as unacceptable job-shopping by the unemployed who will not accept work unless it meets their conditions. The same expectations of acceptable working conditions and seeking advancement are approved for the middle class but not low-income workers. Stone counters that the anti-entitlement argument is "a stealth critique of democracy" (p. 52) because, in a democracy, citizens should make demands on government. Conservatives seldom complain when corporations and the wealthy make demands, but often complain when the disadvantaged use these same skills (p. 53). She objects to the way the term "moral hazard" has been formulated to argue that the social safety net is the problem. She concludes that "the real moral hazard is the temptation to walk past someone who needs help...A government that doesn't provide safety nets creates moral hazards for its citizens, because safety nets enable us to behave like Samaritans, even when we can't be present at the scene" (p. 286).
Deborah Stone concludes that government should help our neighbors because a democratic government is "a pact to help each other" (p. 292).
One bad argument is the attack on the so-called entitlement attitude. She cites Lawrence Mead as someone who argues against what he sees as unacceptable job-shopping by the unemployed who will not accept work unless it meets their conditions. The same expectations of acceptable working conditions and seeking advancement are approved for the middle class but not low-income workers. Stone counters that the anti-entitlement argument is "a stealth critique of democracy" (p. 52) because, in a democracy, citizens should make demands on government. Conservatives seldom complain when corporations and the wealthy make demands, but often complain when the disadvantaged use these same skills (p. 53). She objects to the way the term "moral hazard" has been formulated to argue that the social safety net is the problem. She concludes that "the real moral hazard is the temptation to walk past someone who needs help...A government that doesn't provide safety nets creates moral hazards for its citizens, because safety nets enable us to behave like Samaritans, even when we can't be present at the scene" (p. 286).
Deborah Stone concludes that government should help our neighbors because a democratic government is "a pact to help each other" (p. 292).
Read
March 7, 2009Fabulous - I am a civil servant and this book nails the dilemma we all feel.
February 23, 2021
I've read a lot of good books on altruism - some which were better than this - but I'm still giving this 5 stars for a few notable reasons. One of those reasons is that most authors skirt around mentioning politics. If you're unable to confront that truth that American Conservatives don't care for their citizens, I would suggest reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Stone mentions Haidt in this book, which came out prior to Haidt's. In that book, he explains how Progressives have a moral code most strongly driven by care. Conservatives have a moral code that spans across a handful of issues, which emphasizes care as a tenet much less.
I also appreciated some of Stone's thoughts I haven't seen mentioned much in other books on altruism. I think her concept of everyday altruism is the most significant contribution of this book. Hopefully your eyes were opened like mine to all the tiny instances of help we provide on a daily basis.
I also appreciated some of Stone's thoughts I haven't seen mentioned much in other books on altruism. I think her concept of everyday altruism is the most significant contribution of this book. Hopefully your eyes were opened like mine to all the tiny instances of help we provide on a daily basis.
February 25, 2009
Stone makes a great case for why it is not only the government's but all of our responsibilities to care about the welfare of our neighbors but particularly the disadvantaged. It addresses stereotypes related to welfare recipients/entitlement beneficiaries with new insight, even to someone who agrees with the programs to begin with. It is not a call for socialism but highlights why countries who care about all of their citizens are better off overall. (Plus, it's just the right thing to do from a humanitarian standpoint.) A little dry at times, but overall very thought-provoking material.
July 22, 2009
I guess the premise is that to be good people, the government should help take care of folks who need it. There are myriad arguments on both sides, some more convincing than others. I suppose some would say that the government's job is to do the will of the people, and many people appreciate social services like unemployment and food assistance. Other people would appreciate the government to do as little as possible, and leave humanitarian work to privately organized groups.
My greatest wish is that the debate over how to help those who cannot help themselves could be a more compassionate, level-headed discussion. :)
My greatest wish is that the debate over how to help those who cannot help themselves could be a more compassionate, level-headed discussion. :)
February 4, 2009
This book articulated a lot of things I've been trying to figure out how to say for a long time, and for that, I liked it. It's a lovely read for a person who wants to read a book where they say, "Yeah, I think that, too," but I don't know that it would be persuasive to someone who isn't already on your side. That's why I gave it the "it was ok" rating. I want a book like this to be persuasive to readers who might be on the fence and I'm not necessarily convinced that it is--maybe Stone didn't want it to be, but I did.
July 4, 2009
Barbara gave me this book, written by a friend of hers. It tells all the problems of helping people who are poor or who have had bad luck through no fault of their own.
It tells about government that gets in the way of helping, people's opinions of why it is foolish to help others and then she gives arguments for and against those concepts. I learned a lot.
It tells about government that gets in the way of helping, people's opinions of why it is foolish to help others and then she gives arguments for and against those concepts. I learned a lot.
September 10, 2008
I actually stopped reading this book about halfway through and started skimming. It was a little too preachy for me. I don't know if I would recommend reading this book. I like the idea of it, but the execution left a little to be desired.
June 3, 2009
Good book.
But I felt like it was a little to focused on altruism rather than the mutual benefits that come from helping our neighbors and community organizing.
But I felt like it was a little to focused on altruism rather than the mutual benefits that come from helping our neighbors and community organizing.
March 2, 2009
THe first couple chapters were good (great counter arguments to the "enablers") and then it became a list of nice things people had done for other people... skimmed those parts.
August 2, 2013
A long argument for a short question.
January 31, 2009
(For work)
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews