The Parable of the Good Samaritan tells a lesson people often take at face value: the imperative to ensure that ethical conduct goes beyond biases. Several psychological experiments, however, have tested real-world applications of the principle, examining how people respond to those in distress. Considered in the wider context of the Philippine political milieu, the lessons highlight the importance of building strong institutions and systems so that leaders behave ethically and responsibly.

The parable tells the story of a man who is attacked by robbers and left for dead on the road. A priest and a Levite, both respected religious figures, pass by without helping. However, a Samaritan — an outsider from a group typically despised by the Jews — stops, provides medical care, and ensures the injured man’s safety. Jesus uses this parable to illustrate that true righteousness is about compassion and action rather than status or religious identity.

The Samaritan helps despite cultural and religious enmity, highlighting that ethical conduct should go beyond biases. This underscores that compassion transcends social divisions. The priest and Levite, expected to be moral, fail the ethical test, while the Samaritan, an outsider, does what is right. The Samaritan takes risks, spends money, and interrupts his journey to help someone in need.

The “Good Samaritan Study” (Darley & Batson, 1973) conducted at Princeton Theological Seminary replicated this scenario. Researchers John Darley and Daniel Batson set up an experiment where seminary students were asked to deliver a talk — either on the Parable of the Good Samaritan or another topic — across the campus. However, along the way, each student encountered a person slumped in distress. The key manipulation was time pressure: some students were told they were late (high urgency), others had moderate urgency, and some had ample time.

The topic of the speech did not significantly influence behavior — even those who had just studied the Good Samaritan parable were not more likely to help. Time pressure was the strongest predictor — only 10% of those in a hurry helped, while 63% of those with ample time did. Situational factors, not personal morality, were the main determinant of whether someone stopped to help.

While moral values are widely taught, ethical behavior is often difficult to practice due to personal, social, and systemic challenges. Human behavior is shaped by context, pressures, and social norms rather than just personal moral beliefs. As shown in the Princeton study, being in a hurry reduces prosocial behavior because individuals become more focused on their immediate tasks than ethical considerations.

The bystander effect (Latane & Darley, 1968) suggests that people are less likely to help in a group because they assume others will act. The Milgram Experiment (1963) showed that individuals obey authority figures even when doing so conflicts with their ethical beliefs. Similarly, corporate or institutional cultures can pressure individuals to act unethically. Finally, people are less likely to act ethically if it involves personal sacrifice, such as financial loss, physical danger, or social repercussions.

Studies show that people’s willingness to help is strongly influenced by their environment. Situational pressures often dictate ethical behavior more than personal morals. This presents challenges but also opportunities. By structuring environments that encourage ethical behavior (like reducing stress, fostering responsibility, and rewarding moral actions), societies can cultivate greater compassion and responsibility.

These lessons are quite powerful in the sociopolitical sphere. No less than Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew once warned that Filipinos are too tolerant of corruption and have short political memories, allowing unethical politicians to remain in power. He says Filipinos working overseas are the best, but they don’t seem to be as productive in their own land.

Unlike Singapore, which built strong, independent institutions, the Philippines suffers from patronage-driven governance, where institutions serve personal or political interests rather than national progress. Lee Kuan Yew observed that corrupt leaders are repeatedly re-elected despite scandals, indicating a lack of long-term political accountability. The judiciary is slow and politicized, allowing powerful figures to evade justice. Political dynasties dominate elections, preventing fresh and competent leaders from rising.

We have to believe that many of those who run for office at the start are ethically inclined but if the environment is such that pressures abound to tempt corruption or ungainly behaviors, then the “good” people will get swamped. The solution is developing institutions that work and building a system of accountability.

Major reforms in systems and processes are needed. It is about time the 1987 constitutional mandate that prohibits political dynasties find concrete and lawful enactment. Monopoly is a bad thing in governance, no matter what the good intentions are, because protecting the dynasty takes precedence above everything else.

Campaign finance laws need to be addressed to prevent politicians from buying votes and manipulating media narratives. Filipinos must be educated to vote based on competence, integrity and policies, not just personality or entertainment value. Schools and universities should integrate critical thinking, governance, and history lessons to counter disinformation.

We have to encourage economic independence and veer away from a system where people rely on politicians for financial aid, jobs, or basic services. Economic opportunities and social services must be handled by strong institutions. The environment must encourage ethical behavior.

The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as FINEX.

Benel Dela Paz Lagua was previously EVP and chief development officer at the Development Bank of the Philippines. He is an active FINEX member and an advocate of risk-based lending for SMEs. Today, he is independent director in progressive banks and in some NGOs.