| | |
|
DoingWrongByNotDoing 8 - 01 Apr 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| | I keep thinking back to something Eben brought up in class last week (Tuesday)- namely, the idea that if you see a problem, or something that you don’t think is OK, you should be doing something about it. I think Eben’s comments resonated with me because they struck a chord with a sort of guilty feeling I’ve often had. The guilt doesn’t come from actively doing anything wrong, but from not actively doing anything that seems particularly right. I’ve often felt uncomfortable with the idea that my life could be considered a moral life when I don’t really think I do anything to correct problems that I see around me. I think the issue boils down to a question of inaction as a morally culpable offense. I do think there is a moral imperative to act when we see something that we think is wrong. I think this idea leads to guilt because I don’t think that I do enough to act, and it’s something that I hope to change if I can figure out how. It made me start thinking about ideas that I’ve struggled with before- for instance, what difference is there between letting someone die before your eyes and not giving them (for example’s sake) the five dollars in your pocket that could save them by buying them food, and not sending food or support somewhere when you can spare it and where it could have a similar lifesaving impact? When does not doing something become as wrong as doing something positively wrong? It’s hard for me to figure out the difference- maybe this is because there isn’t a meaningful one.
I’m wondering what other people think about this. If a person sees something wrong in the world and doesn’t do anything about it, is he or she more culpable than someone who simply doesn’t see the wrong, by choice or by chance? It sort of reminds me also of the philosophical question- is a person brave who isn’t scared in the face of danger, or is a person truly brave who is scared and proceeds anyway? I can’t really articulate how these are connected, but I think it has something to do with making active choices and being aware of situations and choosing to overcome them (as opposed to not facing those choices whatsoever). | | | Agreed - the distinction is an important one and one that wasn't brought up in college. All too often, we focus on instant gratification - we feel "good" when we work in a soup kitchen for a night, and it is providing a useful service, but it is important to see the forest through the trees (sorry for the cliche) and recognize that systemic work is vital as well. Thank you for the clarification!
-- DavidGoldin - 24 Mar 2010 | |
>
> | I don't think homelessness is a good example of this issue since it's something you're forced to confront daily and make a decision about. Even if you act selfishly, at least you're forced to make a value judgment and experience the guilt that you rightly or wrongly feel. Personally, I think the idea that a young woman would allow a homeless man to sleep in her apartment is incredibly reckless and I hope you don't really feel any guilt about choosing not to do so. I don't even think it's in their best interest to give them money. A friend of my mine who does labor-side litigation in DC said he used to carry cards with him with information on the nearest homeless shelter that he would give them. I'm not sure what I think about that tactic - it's certainly what they need but perhaps too condescending.
Either way, I think it's also important to consider the wrongs we allow ourselves to commit, as long as it's only indirectly and under our willing ignorance; the Nikes on your feet, the diamond on your finger, the steak on your plate. Sometimes these things have come to us by avenues and methods which we would never actively condone or partake in. And we know this. But we don't have to see the damage caused by our decision or indecision, so it doesn't feel real.
It reminds me of the controversy from a few years back when Guillermo Vargas displayed an emaciated dog in his gallery presumably with the intention of starving it to death. Despite my personal love of my dogs, I completely understand the message he was trying to send. Stray animals are starving to death all over the world all the time. And not to state the obvious, but PEOPLE are starving to death! And there is no question that we could all make relatively modest concessions in our personal lives and save a significant number of them. That's too abstract. But when one dog is publicly starved, even though it was probably going to starve anyway, everyone is up in arms. That hypocrisy was Vargas' message, and I think it was a valid one.
It was never actually confirmed that the dog starved in the studio and various reports suggests it was released or escaped the next day, shortly after they had taken the photos required to cause the uproar. I'll admit that I was relieved to hear the dog probably starved in the streets instead of in the studio.
-- DanKarmel - 31 Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |