This passage asked us to find the answers of the question "Who Is Our Neighbor" from the point of the victim. And we tend to overlook this.
Sometimes when we are angry, we tend to justify ourselves by asking the question from the point of view of the scribes. The question "Who is my neighbor" becomes "Who deserve our love".
We can feel there is a big different between the 2 point of views. To a victim, every one is your neighbor because you need their help. But to someone who is arrogant, like the scribes, the answer to the question is the only person that deserves my love is only the one that is good or beneficial to me. 

Which ... was neighbour?--a most dexterous way of putting the question: (1) Turning the question from, "Whom am I to love as my neighbour?" to "Who is the man that shows that love?" (2) Compelling the lawyer to give a reply very different from what he would like--not only condemning his own nation, but those of them who should be the most exemplary. (3) Making him commend one of a deeply hated race. And he does it, but it is almost extorted. For he does not answer, "The Samaritan"--that would have sounded heterodox, heretical--but "He that showed mercy on him." It comes to the same thing, no doubt, but the circumlocution is significant.