Charitable Hesitation

By: Jonathan Seidel

Peter Singer, moral praise and ordinary evil: passivity as a curse to humanity (Jeffrey Kaplan)

Peter Singer makes a very interesting assumption. In his moral epiphany he reckons that we think in cost and benefit. Running into a pond to save a drowning child at the expense of one’s shoes is of little significance. It doesn’t matter whether there are bystanders or not. It is your obligation to assist. Yet there is a psychological aspect not of seeing the problem but of not doing anything. Passivity is the curse of humanity. 

Singer’s thesis is constructed into a syllogism. The syllogism begins with the assertion that if we can prevent tragedy without sacrificing much then it is morally obligatory to execute. Describing hunger, disease, disability among others in the category of tragic. Luxuries spent are morally insignificant. Donating money to relief agencies can prevent these very tragedies. Thus it is obligatory on us to donate the would be money on luxuries to these relic agencies to prevent these tragedies. Quite a sound argument. It does run into rebuttal. If there are other people around, does that make you more liable? Singer believes that everyone is their own moral agent and that the onus is on you. Though unlike religious morality which has supernal judgement, this is simply a mental conscious note. Unless you are the sole bearer who could’ve but didn’t, there is much to answer for beyond one’s own mental fatigue. Singer believes in an intuitive reaction to the issue. An ontological assault. It isn’t about the context insofar as the child can be saved and you can do it. If you cannot that is on you and you are failing the world. Harsh but seemingly necessary. 

A child drowning is a bit extreme. The possibility of people watching and not helping is not minute but seemingly discarded. There are cases of bystanders. It is usually the bystander effect that wishes others will get involved. Yet unlike burglaries, this is a child and you can heroically save him. Most people would seemingly do it. Even if it is a dangerous endeavour, compassion for children does go a long way. If this is the case then heroes will make their way into the pond to protect the child. Strangers or now children ought to be protected. For the rational mind, children are innocent and must be defended from life’s harms. While Singer’s questionnaire received full marks, his questions were theoretical. None of the participants were there, thus such context is necessary for further evaluation. Context not only allows the child’s circumstances but also the setting as well as the saviour. Does the potential saviour know how to swim? Does he hesitate not knowing how far he is? Does he buckle under pressure? More or less instinctive execution takes over and people jump in. The mind heads into overdrive and the child is cradled to safety by the anonymous saviour.

In the case of bystanders not doing anything, most people would snarl at them and do it themselves. Stuck in their tracks, a child’s safety warrants engagement. People will get up to save the child. There is always that one heavy tattooed muscular middle aged man that runs in to safe the child swept up by the ocean current. A fatherly love for his son he goes in to save someone else’s. After saving the child, he scorns everyone else for not helping. Some people have a more intact moral compass. Willing to go the extra mile for those they do not know. The is a moral agency nurtured to those who experience the feeble nature of a child. Those who have fathered children recognise the innocence and the easy demise of a beautiful soul. They rush in to provide that uncanny and unique experience to the parents. Just as they wish health upon their children so do they on others. They are selfish people but it seems instinctive to many bystanders to act upon it. A child in need of protection is a sound alarm to the animalistic core of human behaviour. Protect those children they are vital. 

It isn’t entirely clear why people would stand around while a child is drowning. Are they that heartless? There is a certain hope that others will take care of it. It usually is not out of cost-benefit but relying on others to save the day. The list of contextual elements in Singer’s questionnaire are interesting given the friends are trying to prevent saving a child. In such a scenario, most people would look at their friends funny and find new ones. Such immorality is not tolerated. Empathy stretches across the species. A special place for children protection. Child predators receive the worst of punishments in prison. At least one person is stepping up for the child whether he be drowning or dragging his feet in the street. To what extent people sacrifice is measured by the danger to the child. The drowning child is on the verge of death. If a woman was drowning spectators would make their way into the pond to save her. The same goes for another man. In certain societies expectations may be set that a drowning victim is not to be saved by order of the institutional legal system. Yet there is still always one who overrides the system for the betterment of ethics. 

Singer’s example is extreme and thus his conclusion while logically sound does not merit the same result. While he transitions from drowning to starving children continents away, what about the homeless in one’s own town. Singer’s point of seeing is inadequate to some extent since people ignore the homeless in their own town. Yes, there is an obvious ignorance to those abroad because they are far but those close by are also neglected. People see those starving and yet do nothing. Why? Bystander effect? To some degree yes but to another degree no. It is more the social perception of homeless. A child drowning grabs the attention. It is desirable to save a child. While the right thing to do, praise follows the heroic attempt. Hailed in the news networks for his obvious action. When the hero tells reporters it was nothing or of course he is not being humble but stating the obvious. On the hand if he left the child to die he would be ridiculed. Judgement of this act intoxicates a level of adherence to ensuring the survival of a child. It is not cost-benefit but capability in the face of social reaction. 

A homeless child may receive empathy but not a shelter to protect him. A vendor may take pity on the boy and provide him a free meal but potentially periodic. The danger is not perceived in the same light nor is the social obligation. It is not on the individual to open their homes to a straggler. Either it is the government’s or fate. It is not a bystander effect in the classical sense. It is not necessarily that another will pick up the slack but that it is too much to bear. There are so many questions. Giving a free meal is a start but then again that doesn’t solve the whole problem. People know about the problem but do not know where to start. Do not see their efforts going anywhere. The child is powerless to the world. In the sea, his life is spared and the problem solved but on the streets, salvation is stability. Hoards of cash must be allocated to supplying him the basic needs. Shelters exist and yet are underfunded and under concerned. If the representative force cannot do its job how does it expect the average person to do so. The citizen relies on the state. Pity does enable a few periodic assistive steps even to the extent of adoption but that is scarce given the obligations. 

Relief responses to natural disasters are executed infamously by church groups. These ethically charged organisations see it their duty to help their fellow citizens. Losing a house is one thing but a whole community deserves more aid. The group is coming for the entire affected. The magnitude of the disaster raises alarm bells. Leading to mass infliction of aid. Yet while they run to assist brethren abroad their own neighbours suffer to pay rent. The level of danger battles the necessity of assisting. All the aid going to Ukraine is pushed against the homeless problem. So much money that could’ve saved millions of lives went to random people abroad. Their situation is apparently more dire. Russia is attacking them. They are more important than stragglers on the street. More important than protecting fellow citizens. Generally the latter argument is void but even when brought up is ignored for assisting those with zero connection. It has little to do with connection and more to do with the media frenzy and narratives sown into the logic of human existence. Who is worse off. Obviously Ukrainians. They are fighting Russia. The homeless did it to themselves. This is America. Dubious caricatures of citizenry life demise is shortly acknowledged in the face of the big bad wolf. How can the lazy bums compare to the freedom fighters.

Kitty Genovese is the most famous bystander effect case. Her attack horrid and death tragic. The conclusion people thought someone else would stick up for her. Yet it also plausible they fear for their own lives. If they stepped up they could be hurt or attacked. Helping the innocent in danger does not preclude the danger on the self. If the child was drowning surrounded by sharks would people still jump in? Maybe or search for an alternative. It is a combination of elements. Children do receive more empathy and risk would be experimented to assist the child than a random case. If Kitty was a child more people may have stepped up or not. It depends on the situation as well as the people. The psyche presents the situation differently by case. Nothing is built in a vacuum. Yet the sight has little to do in this case. It is a representation of magnitude and social perception to the self. It is not black and white. Variables alter the picture to a more greyish imperfection. Kitty’s death while deplorable may have more to do with the consequences of one’s actions than the hope that another would take care for it. Had she’d been attacked in the middle of Manhattan with many passersby, others may have lent a hand. Others were waiting for the authorities to do their job. Proximity despite danger may have empowered empathy. The case holds up somewhat but other aspects do explain the tragedy.

Social conditioning and generational biological beliefs coordinate to a certain perception of people. Whether that be due to situation distance or individual. The rationale to assist is quite mute in most situations. The blame game or even shedding the problem to a higher institution undermines the drive to aid. To take the seemingly worse example. A California musician built one room houses for the homeless. Paid and provided by his own bank account. A true gentleman. Then the government came and tore them down. An offence this was to them for doing the government’s job. Yet the government has yet to provide any housing to these people. The only single hope was tarnished by elected fools who arrogantly claim to solve it but in the end do very little. A stigma of elitist narcissism as well as citizen expectation. Even when people help, the government looks down upon them. How dare you assist those in need. The media defends the elites and then the public is disinterested in helping. The cost to themselves overrides the benefit to others. It isn’t simply that people are evil but the government’s promise is rarely fulfilled. When executed knowing their incompetence, the government retaliates. It is a lose-lose. All those tax-paying dollars apparently goes nowhere. The government’s protection is voided for the homeless, usually those people who they themselves screwed over. 

Assistive logic is sound but there are many deterrents, many a time political maniacs. There was a case of a wealthy philanthropist who desired to build a huge park but politicians rejected his claim and gave it to an elite mogul who the council owed a favour to. Even benefactors are strayed due to elite corruption. A vicious cycle. Policemen failed to save a drowning child because they were not trained, if they had dove in disciplinary action was imminent. Stupid rules and dubious debts further undermine the charitable capability. How many of the non-profit organisations promising to assist those in need actually hold up their end of the bargain. BLM was a huge movement with aspiring heights to assist the black community. Barely a dime went to those causes and instead went to greedy pockets of the activists. Blocks and walls hesitate charitable empaths from assisting. Giving a child a free meal will cost business hurting his ability to meet month’s rent. Taking in a child without proper adoption protocol can be exceedingly legally viable despite the agency’s corruption and endless loop. It is not easy to be charitable when corruption is so prevalent. When there are so many institutional loops preventing charitable agency. So why bother when the cost is too great. Singer is correct logically but he is living in anarchy or in the past. Society has regulated so much that doing anything nice can be illegal. This is not even a joke. It is terrible with no sight for reconciliation in any degree.

If anything, this conditions people to not help at all. Thus in cases where there is legality to assist people aren’t prone to help. Combined with the inherent stigmas about homelessness and it is evermore unlikely people will assist. Beyond institutional grounds, people do help but through organisations. Nobody knows if beggars are truly genuine or are they playing a part. That poor woman sits there everyday so many people help her she is must be scamming, that man has an iPhone he is scamming people. Eyewitness testimony derails giving without an investigation. Deciding not to inspite of their guilt. The people sceptical prefer to give to organisations. Yet not all these organisations are adequate or genuine like BLM. Most find them trustworthy or only give to certain ones they know are legitimate. There are still many lost, those who do not get help. Good organisations cannot cover everyone and with the government fighting more than executing productive action the homeless rot. There is also a fear of the homeless more than just a scepticism. They harass in desperation but it comes off as annoying and aggravating. People do not like to give to those who insult them. Yet these people are just hungry and empathy is overshadowed when insults are hurled. People do not feel bad because the cost of the insult is too great.

Yesterday, on the train, a poor man bequeathed everyone politely if passengers could spare him a total of 40 bucks. A large sum but the poor man explicitly stated that he was not coercing, wishing from those who were willing and was asking a little bit from everyone not a lump sum from a single individual. Interestingly, his mellow attitude garnered a pleasant response. Those unwilling or without cash did not give and he did not pry. People gave what they could and a girl even ran after him to supply a few coins. He smiled with gratitude from all those who assisted. A teary story indeed and one that conversed correctly procured himself the adequate amount. Most people are savages. So desperate that they beg impolitely. It isn’t a scare tactic nor to put you down. It is simply their fear taking the driver’s seat. If executed correctly the response will be affirming but emotions run high in desperate times. The poor man on the train’s perception was quite positive. Also, requesting from people after the holidays, it was pretty evident, passengers wanted to start the new year on a good note. Tone and appearance play a role in conjuring the recipient’s response. If you are hounded by the same beggar twice in a few days, it may undermine future attempts to give. Yet while you remember the beggar, he either remembers you giving and believes you to be a good man or he has no idea who you are and is just making his rounds in hope to satiate himself. Either way he is not trying to assault you but attempting to keep himself sane and healthy. 

Coming full circle, the case of a drowning child would save multiple times. The child may be seen as klutz but his impending death impassions spectators to assist him. The variables of the situation and the magnitude of danger is relevant. Then again hunger is impending death as well. Yet people see beggars as those who would go spend their money on drugs, so why give. It is just a waste. A stereotype though sometimes true is fleeing the disaster and mental deterioration of homelessness for some temporary joy. The perception of drugs is inherently negative and with no empathy for why the drugs or even their impact, the semantic speculation is not worthwhile to give. He is doing this to himself so why assist him in his death. This is also a stereotype not true of all or even most beggars. Social conditioning has an enormous impact on response to near tragedies. What is considered a tragedy and when does one intervene. These principles are codified in the psyche of the collective conscious. There are certain norms. People are praised for saving a drowning child and judged for letting him die. The same is not afforded for giving or not giving charity. This has little to do with foreign or domestic and more to do with stigma and norm. Singer’s logic is sound but his logic removes context undermining his entire utopian aspiration. 

From Rags to Ribbons

By: Jonathan Seidel

Humans may wish to belong but they do not always belong anywhere. Ideally there is a place called home and a concerned nuclear family but that is fiction. Some are lucky others not so much. Fending for the self is noble yet an unfortunate art. The self is the concentrated funnel to which no one else can bear. Out on the street looking depressed hinging on providence. Begging for salvation. Such attempts are vain. There is no overlord except the self’s indulgence in his own care. His own meditation to stay alive. Out on the streets after finding some scraps to eat, he ponders his condition. The first few days were overwhelmed with fighting hunger unable to deal with the famishing dilemma lingering in his saliva. Calmed into a disheartening routine plays into an interest in surviving through the days. His existence is necessary for himself.

Others may not care for his existence but he does. Alone for a while unconcerned by the naked eye. He declines to beg in the streets. Wallowing up in self pity. Hoping a stranger feels generous. A few coins not much to get through the day. He has learned to live on the streets. Some days are easier than others. Hot summers and  cold winters plague his body. His home in his abode. A sleeping bag and some tattered clothes muffled into a small shopping cart. He has designated his corner near his favourite diner. He has matured in his will to persist. Running wild seeking help. Walking up to people asking them mercilessly for some compensation. A sad story rehearsed to draw out empathetic tunes of rhythmic donations. He was a wild card scaring potential givers. With some practice and routine he formulated his rhetoric with emotional insight. Finding their humanity and exploiting it for himself.

He needed the money for his survival. Yet such routine grew tedious and exhausting. He was the guy who annoyed people for money. His fame backfired. Pity became fury. Unrelenting individuals looked angrily at him for stealing their hard-earned money. Generosity was better spent on charities. Blogs promising to help needy children abroad. He was the stain of the corner. He hid his face in his bag leaving his coin jar a few feet from his head. He couldn’t change his image but he could conceal it. Generous folk would donate if they didn’t know who it was. The faceless encounter prompted his jar to fill instantly. It was his demonic face that scarred. His existence was mirrored by his appearance. A beggar hoping for some cash. His passivity was rewarded. 

Still, the few coins enabled him to make it through the day but not beyond. He endured but winter was coming soon and his clothes would not protect him. The little bits aided him but it was insufficient. He needed a big whale. The storeowner across the street joyfully placed his jar on the counter of her store. Each day she would incline customers to pay it forward. Some coins in the bucket. Each day it worked. Eased by the storeowners sweet words and intent. She was his advocate. He had never felt such generosity. She filled his jar and brought it back to him. Away from the stench of the backwater creations, lightened the joy of giving. Exiting the diner they’d snarl at him unaware that they were paying for his winter clothes. So caught up in their frustration and expectations, they mock him at the same time saving his life. 

A devious tactic by the storeowner but a necessary one to protect the struggling outsider. He couldn’t do it alone and she made it her mission to assist him. He had never been helped in the most loveable of ways. Random people did their due diligence with meagre coins for him to make it to the next day but this was a brief encounter. One that was more about the giving than the receiver. The joyful feeling of giving is a selfish ploy. To give to feel good about oneself without any concept of the affect on the receiver. To give without a second thought and without a second word. Throwing leftovers for rats to chew on. Coins are insignificant. A pain for people to carry. Giving them away is letting go of that which is waste. The coins are beneficial but the intent matters. Receiving the coins bought him lunch but it also felt automatic. There was a split moment of attention and off on the giver’s way. He was part of the giver’s routine. Just a portion of his paradise.

The giver remembers his face. “Oh I gave you yesterday”. Recalling his face and failing to reckon with his status. Fasting for most of the day, starving but yet to the giver he is on a schedule of recipients. He is a face but without a name. A lowlife with no future except to rely on the generosity of others. In time, they grow upset or bored of assisting. He is a project that is not worth providing for. He takes our money and does nothing with it. Sparing a few coins and he cannot lift himself out of the pits of the alleyways. A lost cause not worth the investment. His face reminds them of his failures. Of their few coins going to waste. The amount that doesn’t even muster a few dollars is calculated as a foregone expense. He is an outsider, a wrongheaded stock that will never blossom. With no trajectory giving is not only wasteful but repugnant. 

The storeowner’s mercy begs the question of her maternal sympathy. She sees his struggle and offers a hand beyond the simple give and take. She does provide coins but a location. She shifts the circumstances away from the troubling street to the air conditioned indoors. He sits outside but taking his jar indoors alters the giver’s perspective. He is duped. He thinks he is giving to a good cause because a nice lady is advocating. It is no longer the face of the beggar but the face of a nice lady. It is no longer the dirty outdoors but the clean indoors. The swapped relation invigorates giving again. The customers see an opportunity to help the community. Untrustworthy of the homeless folk, they’d rather put their trust in the nice lady’s hands. Even though she could be swindling them, her radiant face and soothing request is persuasive. Coins stockpile in little by little. Garnering more money in a few hours than he made in a day. 

Safety inside enveloped a positive outlook on helping the needy. His jar audaciously growing. Each evening she’d pour the jar into his. Instead of force-feeding him, she permitted him to make his decisions with the money she gathered. The goal was invoked some responsibility on his part. His choices would be his life. Would he spend his money on snacks or a healthy meal? On clothes or alcohol? She did not know what he needed but that he needed. The dirty outside failed to receive nearly half of what the storeowner prospered. Her customers were in the habit of leaving tips and extra coins for the needy. Carrying coins around is not routine but receiving coins for billings only furthered the simple placement of the extra annoying coins in the jar. The diner was happy place. Satisfied with their meal customers eagerly paid it forward. Leaving their coins for the staff and the needy. 

Living on the corner was not a lifelong goal. He needed some sort of handout. The coins were helpful but it was insufficient to provide adequate shelter. He was used to the street but it was also dangerous. He finally mustered the courage. The storeowner poured the coins in and he chimed in asking if she could hire him. She told him she would give him a chance but baby steps. She brought him to her place to shower and get ready. The diner’s peaceful atmosphere would be ruined by his appearance. He wasn’t well-liked stereotyped as the annoying beggar. On his first day as a waiter, some customers recognised him and showed indifference. A sceptical vibe sprang through. Still not associating with him. He greeted customers cynically and customers rudely called him and treated him as a beggar. He was beneath them. They were eating and he was their mercy. 

Instead of hiding him in the kitchen, the storeowner left him out in the open. He was ridiculed but as he continued his work elegantly and joyfully, customers began to change their attitudes. He became part of the joyful atmosphere. Even if memories of his beggar life were not erased, his growth mirrored his own sense of attachment to the diner. He was no longer alone on the streets but a part of a larger community. The storeowner sought his loneliness and salvaged his troubling situation. He was a member of the diner team. He was indoors in the pure innocence of joy.