Mixed feelings. It’s true that history is full of horrible evils that could only happen because the majority of people who were not evil, didn’t stop it. At the same time- we get to this weird place. “The other 9 may as well not be there…” in essence- isn’t that what the other 9 are trying to do? To effectively remove themselves, to have nothing to do with it? We have two major branches to look at. 1. What is a persons obligation to extend themselves for another, and what are the criteria? How extreme does the situation have to be and what level of effort or liability should we expect of a person on behalf of another- a stranger?
2. Do humans have no right to be passive? Must a person be on “a side” and by choosing to not become actively involved to either party, does a person automatically become on the “other side”?
How do we resolve that? If being uninvolved
means that each party would see you as “on the other side,” who’s side are you on? You’re back to being on no one’s side
So then is that the case, that being on no one’s side means that you are automatically everyone’s enemy? So “minding your own business” is not a peaceful way to live but instead the least peaceful as you have no Allies and all enemies? So what about when two sides are both wrong, or at the least neither is right? Does that mean you must willing choose wrong? To do as this implies and stand against wrong, the only way to be right would be to take no sides of you don’t believe any side is right correct? But then we are back to square one except everyone but you is wrong and now everyone should mind their own business? That doesn’t seem right either. Perhaps most practical- what if one simply doesn’t have the information to feel comfortable acting? If you see a person take a bag from another, how do you know they are stealing vs. the other person is the thief and they ar staking back their bag? Sometimes context makes it obvious, but sometimes from where you are standing, you don’t have..
.. that context. Some people are also more perceptive, and tragically, friends and family and teachers and people close can see someone every day and not realize they are being abused or are suicidal or are going to go on a murder spree- and after the fact these people often kick themselves and suddenly, after the fact they realize the signs were there all along, they saw them, and they never put it all together. In the extreme, we could turn around and blame the parents who didn’t stop their child’s suicide because they did nothing while it happened in slow motion in front of them. So I don’t know- I have mixed feelings and the whole “silence is violence” thing makes sense I’m some levels, but on others it is a bit self centered. Every person has battles of their own, and most people have causes they care about and/or advocate and act on.
No one has the bandwidth for all of them. There are hundreds or thousands of groups of different people who are fighting for something or suffering some sort of exploitation or subjugation or oppression. If you help train teachers in ravaged remote areas 6 months out of the year and survey the Arctic 6 months of the year to study climate change- that doesn’t leave a lot of time to attend the “X type of people March” or protest outside the homes of officials etc. now that’s an extreme example, hyperbole to illustrate the concept- but when someone is doing things and trying to help people but then some person with some other issue comes up and says to them: “hey, why aren’t you doing my thing? You’re trash…” that’s a tad disrespectful. I mean- climate change will probably kill us if we let it, but so will toxic pollution. Someone can fight one and someone else can fight the other and they are both fighting to make the world better, but if both aren’t also working on each thing they…
.. may as well not be there? I don’t know that I can agree. Now- to be clear, I think that generally, whatever the wrong is, if we see wrong in front of us, and we are in a position to try and stop it, and a few other factors there- but to boil it down, yea. We need to speak up when we see wrong and can do so. Of course- it gets philosophical from there when we layer the pragmatic. Like- if someone in power or authority, a boss, an armed person, a parent etc. is going to do wrong right in front of you, and saying anything won’t change what’s gonna happen except to f@ck you too- do you have an obligation to speak up? Some say yes morally. Some say no as it makes no difference other than to put you in a worse position. I think some of this is personal and not what we can judge on. Generally though- if you see discrimination or predation and you don’t try to stop it, you don’t do SOMETHING, even whatever little thing you can without exposing yourself to unacceptable risk or to help…
.. after the fact or to fight against in the future- but if you don’t do SOMETHING, and you do totally nothing- maybe speaking up to your boss won’t change things and maybe you’ll get fired too or whatever, but if you stand by and then you don’t quit or start gathering evidence against your bosses or anything that at the very least makes it clear that you don’t stand with those people- yeah. You probably have chosen a side. There is certainly a difference between minding one’s business and being complicit. Continuing to benefit from and/or provide benefit to a system, relationship, organization, group, society, etc. which allows or perpetrates such things is being complicit to wrong. At least that’s what if figure.
2. Do humans have no right to be passive? Must a person be on “a side” and by choosing to not become actively involved to either party, does a person automatically become on the “other side”?
How do we resolve that? If being uninvolved
means that each party would see you as “on the other side,” who’s side are you on? You’re back to being on no one’s side