Ethic and indifference

[Kurotsune]

So I was feeling philosophical today and I figured "Hey, let's write another one of these." Odds are to the great majority of you this text will be purposeless, uninteresting, or even idiotic. Yet, if through these I can promote introspection, reflection and thought in a single person, then I consider them to have met their purpose.

So I was thinking about ethics today. Namely, what constitutes ethic? What is ethical or unethical behavior? Well, ethic is a social convention, a particular set of ideologies that should be followed and upheld. Ethics seems like a simple concept that most people follow and open-heartedly uphold.

Well, before we discuss that, I'd like to introduce you to someone.

(Warning, this image, following it's explanation, may be disturbing to some. That said, there's nothing graphic within.)

This is Douglas Alves Meira. Upon a first glance, you may imagine him to be asleep. The most attentive of you noticed the stain in his shirt, however, and the more textually-capable likely understood the implication of this picture coupled with the text above. To clarify, in January 1, 2015, Douglas was killed. The picture above was taken in Estaleirinho Beach, in front of a bar, where a new year's party was on-going. You may think the party ended because of it. It did not. The body was merely covered, and the partygoers continued their festivities.

Before you judge them, however, I posit we discuss what happened. They were indifferent to the corpse. indifference, in it's simplest explanation, is not being different. In other words, remaining normal or casual in front of a situation; Refusing to acknowledge it's existence or occurrence.

If you think this is a singular event, to note, it is not. Several similar cases can be found both through history and through the globe, happening often enough even in recent, more "civilized" times. Why does this indifference occur, however?

Well, indifference is the indifference to human life. Thing is, even if the above is a glaring example, odds are you are guilty of this yourself. You, me, everyone at some point in their lives likely have exhibited a similar kind of indifference. Everytime you walk past someone sleeping on the street, a child in rags asking for food or coin, or an old woman clearly dying from famine and pestilence, and you do nothing, are you not diminishing their worth and the worth of their life to nothing as well? Are you not being indifferent to their status as a human being?

Let me put it this way: We all recognize the poor need proper care and that taxes are paid to that extent and often not utilized towards it, but none of us in the great majority of the cases will go to the streets in a mad fury over their mistreatment. Why would we? We've been educated to not care. Educated to be indifferent.

Not just that. The words to represent someone of a lower class are often pejorative in nature. Bum, vagabond, hobo, beggar. We've detached the meaning behind these words, and we've objectified the people they represent. Society has banalized poverty, and dehumanized the poor.

This is one of three types of social indifference, or at least that's how I personally separate them.

Well, I can't cite sources for this one, unfortunately, as it is largely my own idea. This said, I highly doubt it's never been thought of before, so if someone knows a source with a similar view, please send it my way.

On that note, I've said, that's the first. Indifference towards the low or the objectification of the excluded is the indifference of those in higher classes towards those of minor classes, often failing to see them as people who deserve the same things we do. This happens often enough and it's the one type of indifference I say most here have committed and I'll be fairly straightforward when I say everyone here has enough social status to have committed this kind of indifference once based on a simple parameter: You've all access to the internet as you are reading this right now, implying you've some financial stability to be able to spend money on something superfluous like a computer for entertainment rather than essentials such as food or clothing.

This is the indifference where the social outcasts are no longer seen as people, but as things. Something to avoid, dislike, be disgusted by. Something to not be different towards. In fact, I've met some who went as far as see them as a nuisance, something to be removed and hidden from sight, rather than to be cared for.

This kind of indifference is glaring within society, even in places with low poverty rates.

The second type of indifference I call the indifference towards the low or the objectification of the included. It's effectively the response of the outcasts towards the ones who excluded them to begin with. To those within the lower social castes, the people in higher castes are the ones to become meaningless, their lives being insignificant enough to terminate, say, for a shoe, or a piece of bread, or money.

This indifference happens a lot in society as well. Ever noticed how both extremes - Poverty and abundance - are referred to in a pejorative manner? The upper class is looked upon with as much disdain as they do the lower class, and so continues our social cold war, where we isolate ourselves to a disregard to those who differ from us. This second type of indifference and the first have a symbiotic connection. As one intensifies, so does the other, creating a constantly growing rift between the classes.

The last type of indifference is the indifference towards the same or the objectification of the peers. It's the indifference towards the ones like us. The indifference of the rich towards the rich can be evidenced by the various videos found online of people being stolen without anyone blinking an eye to the fact. The crime towards the other being ignored completely, and the values of the others being considered less significant than our own.

So you likely realized that means we're pretty much indifferent towards everyone. Well, we kind of are. In VSAUCE's video "The Science of Awkwardness", posted below, Michael Stevens discusses the social behavior we call "awkwardness" and how/why it exists:

In the video, Stevens comments two important citations I'd like to repeat today. First is a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:

"You wouldn't worry so much about what others think of you, if you realize how seldom they do."

The second citation is the following:

"From our twenties to our thirties, we worry about what others think of us. From our forties to fifties, we no longer care about what others think of us, and from our sixties to our seventies, we realize they never thought of us."

Obviously, those statements - Like Stevens' entire video - are geared towards social awkwardness and the perception of social judgement, but they can just be applied to this concept.

We are so worried about ourselves we detach ourselves from everything else. We see other people - Like stated in the video - as one-dimensional characters with a single purpose, with ourselves being the "protagonists of the universe". Well, when we do that, what are we doing if not being indifferent to them? Suddenly, their stories, ambitions and motives no longer matter. Only ours, what we want and what we do, is relevant. This is the objectification of your peers, the disregard for anyone else's story but your own, the thought that others don't know better than you do, and that you stand alone as the single martyr of the universe.

If I exaggerate, I beg pardon. My usage of ad ridiculum above is merely to drive a point home: All of us, at some point in our lives, are guilty of indifference. None of you, myself included, is above this. Ethic is a constant struggle, something to never be disregarded or considered a simple concept. In fact, if we're to think about how I characterized ethics above, wasn't that the indifference towards ethics? Incidentally, indifference towards the very thing that maintains us morally correct, taking what is often the most misunderstood concept of morality for granted?

If indifference is the disregard for others, then ethic is surely it's opposite. The regard for those around you, the understanding that everyone has a story, a struggle, that everyone matters, that everyone should be understood, not excluded, regardless whether they are above, below, or the same.

And so we are back to Douglas Alves Meira. If ethics had been upheld, his death would've caused uproar. If indifference did not reign within our society, pushing away our sense of ethics to the point human life is no longer more meaningful as celebrating the new year, his death would've caused commotion.

Instead, Douglas is one article among thousands. A victim of ignorance, left to rot among the margin of the road. A social outcast, if not before his death, then certainly afterwards.

I ask that you help me break this cycle. None of us can stop to help every person we meet that needs help - Since then we'd be literally stopping to help every person we meet, but we can certainly assist all within our reach. When you meet someone, understand them before you isolate them. Do not judge them because of their actions before you've heard their motives.

I could in fact point to a few instances where this has happened to myself upon my entrance to this very community, so I know for a fact Reborn is not without it's blemishes. Before you consider yourself above what I'm saying, I ask that you deeply reflect if you're truly so unblemished to the point you've never once committed this kind of behavior.

Don't think you should be ashamed, however. No one is obligated to be perfect, and in fact that we can understand our flaws and act upon them to become a better person, the fact our mistakes are what causes us to be in perpetual growth, is exactly what makes us interesting, unique, human beings.

But that's a conversation for another time.

[madf0x]

Eh I have a few small things to nitpick here. For one you are correct that ethics is a social convention. Ethics however isnt necessarily the disregard of others. It changes over times and in different cultures. For the vikings it was ethical to go to war and pillage, human sacrifice was ethical to the aztecs, etc. Your call to action isnt really a call to be ethical, its a call to make not being indifferent ethical.

The other nitpick, indifference is a mandatory part of being alive.There is simply too much information and too many people to not be indifferent to the vast majority of them. I like the vibe of your call to action but I challenge you to walk down the streets of new york or seattle and in practice not be indifferent to EVERYONE you cross paths with. You simply cant. Youll be stopping every three seconds to interact with someone who in all likelihood wants you to leave them alone. People will probably just think youre one of those crazy people out in the streets. Now I know you said specifically not to do this, but I want to reiterate this because the small is evident of the big, no? We have to be indifferent to many smalls to order to function and ergo sometimes we need to be indifferent to the big. There are too many big things out there each and everyone of us could help, but none of us can help all of them. Some things have to be pushed to the side. Its when everyone pushes the same things to the side that issues occur.

The incident with the man killed is also less likely to be a case of disregard for human life as it is a case of the Bystander Effect. That feeling that 'oh someone else will take care of the issue' and thus never intervene. Documented cases of some very terrible things have occurred in the middle of a crowd with no one stopping it simply because of the bystander effect. The story feels a lot like that case, its not that the people didnt care(some of them probably didnt) its that no one had the courage to make it their problem. It may not seem like much of a difference to you, but I see it as being the source of a completely different and likely equally insurmountable problem.

Theres a few other things I could probably comment on, but I already know that I probably shouldnt as itd be delving into things where I have a uhh 'unique' opinion on that wouldnt really be helpful.

[NickCrash]

[placeholder]

I'm going to quote Homer Simpson here: "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand". I'm also going to present some reasons behind one part of indifference in our society. I clarify that I do not endorse it, but I can understand it.

People see what's happening around them. Some accept it and some others don't. There are some who are contempt with this situation, and others that despise it.

Given the numerous scandals behind exploitation of the poor, people decide not to help, thinking that it is someone else (a syndicate) behind them being on the streets and asking for money (at least in my country), where the people begging aren't the ones who receive them and try to survive or buy necessities. Heck, some even do it as a job! They've been noted to fight over certain spots. Eg the beggar in front of the local supermarket makes 500€ a week (along with his two companions covering the block), and he's seen riding a car which a person with an everyday job can't afford. The child who is begging me for some money to get something to eat is gathering money for his parents or people who just keep him and tolerate him because he brings money (was Oliver Twist a British production?).

A scenario like this has happened to me quite some times, because sometimes I give money. Here are two examples actually:

a) Child begs for money to eat something. I go and buy him something to eat. He specifically asks it to be put in a box and leaves. Thanks me nonetheless, as he's still a child and (this is my optimist self speaking) understands that I know what's happening, so he sees that what I do is for him and shows gratitude.

Child begs for money to eat something. I go to buy him something to eat. Spits at my shoe, curses me for not giving him money and leaves. This didn't register on an emotional level. I let him go away, but the incident is recorded in my memory for later use.

Most people act by experience. They are not indifferent. Some are mostly hurt themselves and others are skeptical, because they know that anything similar is potentially exploited. Their conclusion is that helping hand-to-hand is neither actually contributing, nor certain of a good deed, as they might have just financed this situation to continue existing.

I currently have no time to analyze the other forms mentioned.

[Yash]

A scenario like this has happened to me quite some times, because sometimes I give money. Here are two examples actually:

a) Child begs for money to eat something. I go and buy him something to eat. He specifically asks it to be put in a box and leaves. Thanks me nonetheless, as he's still a child and (this is my optimist self speaking) understands that I know what's happening, so he sees that what I do is for him and shows gratitude.

Child begs for money to eat something. I go to buy him something to eat. Spits at my shoe, curses me for not giving him money and leaves. This didn't register on an emotional level. I let him go away, but the incident is recorded in my memory for later use.

Most people act by experience. They are not indifferent. Some are mostly hurt themselves and others are skeptical, because they know that anything similar is potentially exploited. Their conclusion is that helping hand-to-hand is neither actually contributing, nor certain of a good deed, as they might have just financed this situation to continue existing.

So this is something I have seen in my city.. It's also very openly done, with groups of 10-15 children out on the streets begging and one or maybe two adults sitting nearby monitoring them.. These children will take the money you give them and hand it over to the adults.. The good thing is most of the times if they get food they tend to eat it..

Another thing I have noticed is that often you find these underprivileged people begging instead of doing day to day jobs, simply because they get more money this way..

I don't know how many of you have seen the movie Slumdog Millionaire, but it has a scene with a certain level of truth to it.. I am talking about the one where they forcibly blind the child beggar in the hopes that he will manage getting more money.. I haven't really heard of this being done per say, but I do know of people who pretend to be injured with casts on their legs and arms and beg..

Those who see these people every day know that it's not a real injury because they have had the cast for the past 7-10 years.. At least that is the case with a man who begs near my old house..

Another thing I felt could be relevant here is the feigned interest in a particular situation.. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the Ice-Bucket challenge..

In India when the celebrities started with it everybody was really hyped with it and wanted to try the challenge.. The truth of the matter is 90% or probably more had never heard of ALS and wouldn't even know the full form of it.. Here the number of people officially diagnosed with ALS is minute compared to the population...

I got an estimate of 0.012% of the population that has been diagnosed with it.. Other diseases are far more prevalent in India.. TB, AIDS, Cancer and Malaria are far more lethal, yet the attention to such causes is minimal..

I'm guilty of ignoring these too, so I do feel wrong about preaching, but I feel that feigning an interest in a cause that is trending is far worse, since the minute the trend passes, so does the support...

Every year in January, we have the Mumbai Marathon, and people get pumped and start training for it months in advance.. They all donate to charities and it's a big deal.. The only issue I have is by the next weekend the entire thing is forgotten..

I agree that people do have other things in mind and yes, without ignoring certain big and small parts, we would probably explode.. I know there are times when I try and contemplate just how screwed up this world is and try and empathise with those who aren't as fortunate as me, I end up crying, not because I understand them, but from the overwhelming feeling that I don't think anybody can, and thus nobody will help them..

As Kuro rightly said, ethics is nothing more than social convention, but does that mean following these trends is ethical? Does it mean abandoning these causes the minute the trend passes is ethical too? Yes these trends provide major support and relief for a variety of causes and they help them immensely in the short run, but does it make any difference in the long run?

I think, I have rambled on way too long.. So I'll just wait for someone else to post now..

[laggless01]

As one might've implied, it's a humongous world whith so much, an so much awful things, going on. If you try to process it all, you simply implode. So, of course (some/most/all of) those things that don't affect us (that) directly will be pushed aside. It is impossible to care about everything while still being able to function, let alone maintaining yourself or others.
We as the world are facing probably the biggest challenges yet, for several reasons.
First, almost all of them are long-term effects, which we as humans are pretty bad at estimating their impact.
Second, a lot of what keeps this society and economy (barely) together has to be abandoned in order to effectively tackle those. For example, our democracies are actually quite undemocratic, even corrupt to varying degree. I don't say that the past was much better, or that there are complete better systems out there atm, but it is to the detriment of the people and coöperation between states.
Third, it has to be done collectively, meaning that everyone has to give in, some more than others. This includes having to give up part of one nation's sovereignity, which tends to be disliked by most politicians and people (especially people directly influenced by those politicians). We have to accept that we can't divide ourselves in little corners for everyone each. However, it is hard to accept giving up such rights if there's hardly any certainty that decisions made by such overruling bodies will be neutral and for the best of everyone. As long as that isn't solved, it is perfectly understandable that governments don't want to give up sovereignity to those bodies.
Fourth (related to second), we don't have real solutions to some of those problems. We don't have a new economic model in the shelf if this one meets its demise, for one. A lot of the problems are really compplex, so solving them is one cluttery mess, which takes even more effort, if it would even help. Some things might never even have a good answer to them.
Fifth, THERE'S SO MANY OF THEM. It's practically impossible for one to keep all those problems in mind. There are a lot of things going on at the same time, and as the number of them rises, our sensitivity to them dulls. Tackling them all would take huge sacrifices, and no-one is really eager to take those.
I don't claim to have the answer for them all, but one can contribute to them, even if it's just a little, so that we can give our children (if you choose), or anyone after us, a better future.