Helping Others at the Cost of Efficiency

Yesterday, I pitched my friends an interesting moral question:

You save someone 15 minutes by using 5 of your own.

You weight your time at $60/hr

They weight their time at $10/hr

By helping them, they “make” $2.50, You “Lose” $5.00

It was not economically worth it to help them, but it was morally correct?Thus triggered the entire discussion below…

Imagine you’re walking briskly to an important business meeting when you notice an elderly person struggling to load heavy grocery bags into their car. You’re quite capable of lending them a hand to get the bags into their vehicle, which would likely only take a couple of minutes of your time.

However, the selfish voice in your head starts doing the calculations — your hourly rate at work is quite high, so taking even a few minutes to assist this stranger means you’re effectively “losing” money by not being at your meeting earning that rate. The spreadsheet mindset kicks in, viewing this chance encounter purely through the lens of personal costs versus benefits.

If you choose to keep walking and ignore the person in need to maximize your own financial interests, it crumbles a bit of the empathy and kindness that makes us human.

The Problem of Indifference

Consider where it leads. Charities and community groups disintegrating as donated time and money dry up. Public parks, roads and facilities falling into disrepair since maintaining shared spaces becomes “someone else’s problem.” Basic niceties like holding doors or guiding the lost becoming alien concepts — they benefit others more than ourselves.

At its extreme, this “look out for number one” ethos licenses society’s darkest outcomes. History’s greatest atrocities were only possible when perpetrators dehumanized victims to the point where alleviating suffering provided zero personal upside. Once stripping all meaning from life beyond what it produces for ourselves, we lose our ethical moorings.

But even the mundane outcome is bleak — joyless transactional colonies devoid of trust, cooperation, and gratitude. Our tribal interdependence replaced by cold individualism. Feeble shadows of the richly social, empathetic humans we’ve evolved to be.

Resisting Self-Interest for Mutual Benefit

None of this argues for endless self-sacrifice. Times exist where the costs of assisting others would cause legitimate personal harm requiring resilience over generosity. But more often, we should challenge that selfish cynicism and ease others’ loads.

A coworker’s burnout gets alleviated by an offer of help on a project. A frazzled mom earns a moment’s peace when a stroller is retrieved. A dog owner’s burden lightens as droppings are courteously scooped. Small investments yield large dignity dividends.

Such acts deepen our social fabric and senses of purpose and pride while honing vital emotional intelligence. They shape us into caring, other-centered citizens. Though the rewards can’t be multiplied on a spreadsheet, they make our lives richer.

We all need wise boundaries, times of recovery and self-prioritization. But defaulting to disengagement in the name of narrow efficiency upends more than we realize — chipping away at the core of what makes existence meaningful.

We are not meant for hyper-individualism. We thrive through our bonds, reciprocities, and willingness to be kind — even when it defies strict self-interest math. Because fundamentally, helping others reinforces our shared humanity.

Ultimately, while rational self-interest has its place, humans are emotional creatures. Even if helping someone is technically “less productive” in that moment, we instinctively code such acts as virtuous because it aligns with our deeper needs for social connection, ethical grounding, and being part of a compassionate community. So while reasoned calculation is wise at times, erring on the side of generosity and kindness simply makes us feel more fully human. It’s the choice that reinforces our better natures.