What do we owe to each other? This is a classic question of moral philosophy, and a critical question that defines how society itself functions. It’s also a key question to understand what role each of us plays to make society successful.
These words were started as society was entering a seismic shift, the COVID-19 pandemic had started, people were dying, fear ran deep, and the disease impacted some far more than others. Some reactions to this crisis were based on what was good for society, others came down to the interests and desires of the individual. The question of what we owe to each other had rarely been so imperative.
I am finishing1 this as society enters another seismic shift. Fear again runs deep, there will be deaths, people are divided to an extent not seen in generations, and, as like before, some see little or no impact while others are disproportionately affected. The question of what we owe each other has not been more pertinent during my lifetime than it is now.
Before we go on though, I’d like to make one thing clear: this essay is intended to spur thought & consideration, and to encourage readers to research this topic more. There is no possible way that this essay can fully cover the topics discussed here. There are places where a single sentence summarises a specialised area of research that a number of people have dedicated their careers to.
To fully cover these topics in depth, it would be to synthesise the work of hundreds of researchers and lifetimes of effort. As such, this is presented not as a definitive statement on these topics, but an introduction to spur further reading.
To discuss this, it’s useful to have an understanding of how and why we got here. If social psychology2 isn’t your cup of tea, feel free to skip ahead.
Humans are, arguably, born selfish and self-serving, from crying strategies to prevent competition for resources to the “mine” stage toddlers go through claiming ownership over everything within reach. Within the first years of life, humans show themselves to often be uninterested in the needs or feelings of others – it’s part of our DNA. While each child develops differently, and shows care for others at different points & frequency, this selfishness is something that should be only temporary.
We grow, we realise that others have feelings, we learn to share our toys, we develop empathy & understanding. While we may have an innate predisposition to this behaviour (we do come from a very long line of social creatures), it’s something that must be fostered to develop properly.
As time goes on, our sense of self develops more, and we perceive ourselves not just as an isolated individual, but associate with others around us3. We transition from “I” to “we” - we see ourselves as part of something larger, and we learn what our role is, we learn where we fit in.
Why does this matter?
This growth4 is necessary for society to function, and the evolutionary steps to achieve this predate the existence of our species by millions of years. In a world without empathy, understanding, or social connections, it would be a world of violence, hate, no cooperation (such as via governments, businesses, or even farms & small communities). There would be no art, no science, no commerce, nothing but a constant and independent fight for survival.
Society exists and functions solely because we have evolved to think of not only ourselves, but others.
Due to some combination of environment & other external influences, not everyone manages this growth. Their worldview progresses little beyond themselves. Once a person learns that there’s a world beyond their own wants and desires, there’s still a bigger challenge to come.
People perceive themselves as belonging to a group5 (and any number of subgroups6), and see everyone else as part of an out-group. Thanks to an interesting psychological effect, people see those in the out-group as more different from themselves than they are, just as they those that are part of the in-group as more similar to themselves than they are.
This perception is a source of out-group homogeneity, the belief that “they” are all the same, interchangeable, whoever “they” are. Conversely, it creates in-group heterogeneity, the view individuals who are part of the in-group are more distinct.
All of this compounds into something interesting, and deeply unfortunate. Our ability to understand people is impacted substantially by our primary group that we identify with. Our ability to see commonalities is driven by that group. Our ability to place ourselves in the shoes of another, to feel empathy, is dictated by that group.
The smaller and more homogeneous that primary in-group is, the harder it is to understand those in the out-group. This is a result of there being fewer points of reference to establish commonalities, fewer opportunities to see things from another point of view.
This in-group centric worldview leads to something far darker, moral exclusion. Members of a group can see their values, history, norms, and culture as superior to those in the out-group. This leads some to see themselves as superior, and treat those in the out-group as lesser – not deserving, not worthy.
This can range from disregarding others and not considering them at all, to outright dehumanising. This is form of belittling and demeaning groups is all too common, from false narratives to marginalising people and their value and contributions. Among those that see themselves as members of a small and limited in-group, they find little common ground, and consider much of the world as being in an out-group that is lesser than their own.
It is this in-group superiority that has contributed to many of the worst atrocities in human history.
By arguing that those in the out-group are of lesser import, they then descend to arguing that others are not deserving of the same rights they enjoy. When you combine these views, it leads people down the darkest of paths and into the depths of evil humans are capable of.
It can start slowly, with hurtful but otherwise small impacts, steadily growing more overt, more direct, more dangerous, and more destructive actions. We see this today in a variety of ways, and in far more overt ways than would be expected even a few years ago7. There’s no reason to believe that this trend is slowing down, much the opposite.
The smaller and more homogeneous the in-group a person identifies with, the less opportunities a person has to build understanding and empathy with others. If a person’s self-selected in-group is based on highly specific filtering factors (e.g. a combination of nationality, ethnic background, religion, socio-economic status, gender), the more likely a person is to view large portions of the population as an out-group that they have negative perception of.
The broader and less filtered the in-group, the more opportunities for understanding, connection, and empathy. The ultimate – though likely rare – in-group is all humans8, without a true out-group.
For me, this belief in the importance of a broad in-group that extends beyond common filtering functions is rooted in a document that I read many years ago, which included a vital line for me:
We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias… Loyd Blankenship, The Conscience of a Hacker
This line resonated with me in a way that few things did; it addressed the view that many of the things that separate of are, in the end, artificial constructs that have little truth. There are things that we have in common, there are things we don’t, but in the ways that matter, we’re all alike.
We’re all people with emotions, hopes, fears, dreams, nightmares. Everything else are those things that make us interesting, give us different perspectives, new ideas, and add to the richness of human interaction.
This is a question that is responsible for numerous books being written, countless hours of lectures in philosophy classes, and millennia of debate. I will not attempt to summarise this here, but rather address this in more direct terms.
it’s about making choices that benefit not just yourself but also the people around you, fostering a society where everyone can thrive
When the COVID-19 vaccine was made available, I booked my appointment the first day I could. I didn’t do this because I didn’t want to get sick, it was in despite of the fact I knew I would. My body doesn’t react well to many vaccinations; the COVID-19 vaccine had me in bed for the next 4 days and it was well over a week before I was back to normal. I knew what I was signing up for and yet I did it, because I didn’t want to risk getting anyone else sick9. A inconvenience for me, for something that could be life or death for someone else. It’s what I owed them. It’s what we owed to each other.
When a friend came out to me as transgender, my response was simply to ask what if there was anything I could do to support them. Why? Because we all deserve respect, we all deserve support from those around us. It’s what I owed them.
When a neighbour was having a yard sale selling things that she obviously needed (such as her baby’s car seat), making it painfully clear that she was desperate for money, I picked out something unimportant for $1, then handed her a $100 bill and told her not to worry about the change. Why? She needed it more than I did. I’ve no idea what was going on in her life, but she needed help, and I could help. It’s what I owed her.
Paying for other people’s groceries when they don’t have enough money at the checkout. Because nobody should be hungry. Paying for other people’s medicine because nobody should go without healthcare. I did these things because it’s what I consider to be the least I could do, because this is the behaviour that we owe to each other. These things deserve no thanks, no credit, not even any acknowledgment. These things should be the minimum that any of us should do, if we are able.
We thrive together, or we fall together. That’s what it means to be part of a society. It means we help each other, we support each other, we respect each other. It’s what we owe to each other.
If we do not stop to help each other, what will we become? Jeff Atwood
Most are familiar with the “golden rule” - treat others are you wish to be treated. This is a foundational norm in a healthy society, the root of what’s good & right in the world. This presents the most basic check for right and wrong, one can simply ask themselves the question: how would I feel if the roles were reversed?
Those that fail to ask this most simple question will often act instead in the interest of themselves (directly, or for the perceived benefit of their in-group), and fail to comprehend the true impact of their actions. A simple lesson that most learn by kindergarten, yet so many fail to keep this lesson.
Countless words have been written in an attempt to answer the question, what do we owe each other, though in reality, there is a simple and concise answer: treat others are you wish to be treated.
This was drafted in February of 2025, based on a draft that began in 2020. Much has changed since the first words were written; fears have been realised, polarisation has intensified. This article isn’t intended as a political discussion, as I try to avoid overt politicisation here, but a reflection on the challenges that we face. This is a complex topic, and one that I have sat aside multiple times. I don’t believe that this is a political question, but a growing societal issue, and it’s important to consider the various roots of this problem. ↩︎
While I have a deep interest in – and have spent substantial time studying – both psychology and philosophy, the key areas of focus of this article, please read this as a layperson’s exploration of a complex topic instead of an expert analysis. ↩︎
This is a vast oversimplification, based on self-categorization theory, presented in the simplest possible way for brevity. ↩︎
To be clear on this, this is not a reference to neurodivergent people. Nothing herein is intended in any way to criticise, demean, or otherwise belittle those with autism or are otherwise neurodivergent. If anything here is interpreted otherwise, then I apologise for the lack of clarity. ↩︎
At the highest level, the group is humans with the out-group being anything living that isn’t human. In practice, the group is substantially more specific. ↩︎
The model presented here of a group and various subgroups, may be better thought of as one to many groups with highly divergent cardinality and substantial (but not necessarily complete) intersection between the low cardinality groups to the high cardinality groups. The group/subgroup model is used for simplicity and brevity. ↩︎
There are many examples of the type of destructive and exclusionary behaviour that is occurring in today’s environment, though I do not see either a need to repeat these, nor do I see a reason to elevate these harmful statements by recounting them as part of this essay. Hateful statements do not deserve such dignity. ↩︎
An in-group of everyone is, to me at least, the ideal. However, due to the realities of human experience and the environments that we are raised in, this self-selected in-group is likely less common than I would wish. I do believe though, that an aspirational in-group is not substantially different than the effective in-group, as it represents an intentional effort to understand those outside the effective in-group. ↩︎
One of the people I was worried about exposing to COVID-19 was my father, due to his existing health conditions. He would later be exposed COVID-19 while in a medical facility, passing away soon after the symptoms became apparent. Had I not been diligent in taking precautions, I could have been responsible for accelerating his passing. The decisions we make matter, even when we have to pay a price for them. ↩︎
