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. 

Cultivated Behaviour

By: Jonathan Seidel

Hegel delineates between ethics and morals. Ethics is a heteronomous social framework and morals are individualistic deductions. While most divisions place morals in the religious frame this is a misnomer. Religion may present an influence but it is itself an ethical model demanded heteronomously. Thus, the moral nuance is the individual’s personal preference in that situation. The systematic makeup is created however how the execution is personal.

There are two ways to describe morals in this dialectic: the details of the ethic or the combination of all varied moral spheres. Religious aspects do not work since it supposes that the social sphere is somehow distinct from religious ethics. Yet the social structure is not uniform on the matter. There is no consistent ethical frame. The community’s ethical model follows whichever political leanings one adheres to. Humanism is not the barometer of ethical security. Abortion, meat, drugs. There are differences in various areas depending on one’s cultural and political references. If anything the only consistency is the morals. Lying generosity and patience are welcomed terms. There is a personal behaviour that is respected by virtue of one’s upstanding ship beyond their ethical makeup.   

Ethics vary by organisation. Mafias have their mode of ethical conduct but such residual depictions are not necessarily moral in hindsight. The varied ethical setups are garnered for social interaction. Ethics is a model of normative interaction. The dos and donts about encountering others. A list to annotate. Yet situations arise and quick decisions are needed to be made. The moral effort is the decision in the field. There is a tribunal but what is the correct model. The military has an ethical code one that is to be followed in war time but the given situation may inquire of the individual to act beyond the ethical code. Whether or not he is tried does not detract from the subjective deduction. Morality is the personal distinction in the heat of the moment. Having a conceptual background in the necessary framework is only the ideal but not the real of the moment. 

Subscribing to a format that relies on the typical case. For the normative circumstances, the ethical layout works but not for the situational drama that emerges. This is the oral details to written textuality. Precepts can contain the foundational layer but fail to optimise every single situation. It just can’t measure to the grind. The system is generated to interfere with the most general of cases but the unsolicited and unidentified carry questionable execution. It is therefore on the subject's interpretation how to proceed. The subject in his own enlightenment must signal the response he believes to be the correct one. There is no charter to cite or mentor to inquire, simply to figure which direction to take. A confidence in one’s own stature to master the scenario. Activity marks initiative and honesty. A break from the tantalising demand. 

It can be argued that the individual’s decision is corrupted by his experiences. Whereby society teaches equality of all men but he has a bias against a certain ethnicity. Yet to an extent the ethnic bias is rooted in his environmental ethical charter. The idea of ethics as solely a state funded phenomenon demurs the communal entrapment of diverse moral failings. Beyond the political differences are value beliefs. The question of abortion is bodily autonomy versus murder. Depending on which community will heavily guide that ethical mind. One could live in a liberal city and be pro-life and vice versa. The moralist who rejects his community’s ethical charter is an outcast on the local level but not nationally. No longer is ethics tied up with morals (except in certain religious states). The melting pot of pluralistic dimensions synthesises various ethical motions. A clash of an ethic differences breaches the political into the social placement of interconnected citizens.

Local ethics finds its stability in corporate businesses. Just like the military, the office build up has an ethical system in place. Each corporation acts differently even if there are certain stylistic motifs. Dress, demeanour and decorum do have their place. While it would be unethical to show up in shorts and a t-shirt to work it is not immoral. Unethical is dually related to the system it is betraying. In certain households it is unethical to walk around in shoes or to watch television during the week. It sounds off but definitionally this is logical. None of it is immoral since it fails to violate any subjective imprisonment or nefarious behaviour. Morals is a judgement against the grain. Acting unethically differs in the immoral attitude as a wrongful decision with little freedom. It is a bad decision made in the moment. It is not intentioned against an institution but a spontaneous action that is derided for its misuse. Actions have consequences and such immorality emerges from bad actions.

Morals do tend to have a universal bind. While situations differ there is a pertinent behaviour expected. Respect and honesty are but a few of the regular upstanding feelings. The way one carries himself is a by-product of his environment. Morals while individualistic are derived from the ethical charter. No matter how foreign from the framework or spontaneous, his actions will merit his upbringing. Still, the subjective experience lends credence to autonomous decision making. There is a sliver of choice to alter fate. In the same vein, the moralistic execution in the heat of the moment while ethically induced does reciprocate in its situational impact. The situation itself may have endured a less obvious response. An embedded ethic evaluates in the typical but the atypical is an estimate. There is an expectation but one that cannot be achieved nor inquired until after the deed is done. Once the punch has been thrown retroactively can the moral debate begin. Context to the situational ambivalence charges morals on its grounds.

A melting pot society symbiotically organises diverse ethics into a single being. Morals are typified by secular, religious, political and genetic dispositions. The individual is a hot potato of varied agendas. Morals act as an indicator of a savoury mixture. While a religious person may follow his religious ethic in a secular society, thereby dubbing it a moral stance is quite circumstantial. His religious ethic is only technically ethical in a state-sponsored spiritual synthesis. Yet even in a theocratic country, it must also be that of his religion. Also on what level does society connote the difference? Is it considered morals if the community is sheltered or is it the nationality that makes the decision? The ethic is relative to the encountering community. Given the pluralistic cable no matter which affiliation, it would be considered morals. The subject is constantly surrounded by dissenters. Placed in a foreign ethical world. Given his varying allegiances there is no single ethic to ascribe to. 

Ethics is the law of acceptable behaviour.  The law is the embedded accord that is dually followed. He who accepts the ethic lives by it. There is no single train and thus the moralist is the result of absorbed material. Spontaneously incorporating his ethical indulgence. Reaching a complex scheme of proper expression. Out in the world he goes with his gut backed by consistent advertising. His actions are mixed with emotion and experience. Lectured on the multiple airways of acting. His views are of careful consideration by the subconscious. Estimating an instinctive reaction in the public eye. Ethics are bland and strict in their formulation. The elasticity is programmed into the situational variety. The hermeneutical deduction succinctly aligns the statement with the facts of the case. Confronted with the nuanced reality requires quick witted action. Using routine to establish consecutive trial and error. Habituated to designate the correct motive in the public sphere. 

One’s actions may be criticised. Dogmas are strong and the ethic comes to life in the fundamentalist scheme. Drawing a direct line between the ethical charter and moral activity. A straight line that does not budge. A semantic reading of a legal text with moot flexibility. The singular possibility is enhanced by the majority voice. Polarised icecaps fail to delineate between the two. Any diversion is harmful to their cause. Nuance is the greatest enemy. Nuance is an illusion perpetrated for false liberty. It is   arbitrarily forcing a people-pleasing hazard. Veiling one’s truth with a foot in each camp. The monistic overtones connect the two into a cohesive framework. The words are different for a reason beyond literary spunk. Offering divergent behavioural metrics. Criticised for not falling in line is a case of cool-aided zombie land. The distinctiveness in the wild speaks to an existential uniqueness in the face of uniform solidarity. The valley in between the two waring kingdoms. 

Morals are so tied to the ethical lecturing force-fed from childhood. Lessons and principles tattooed in the mind’s eye. The negative ethic of bigotry and stereotypical jargon flares into the immoral procedural execution. Anger flares and frustration brews in its targeted malice. Even the kindest ethic can falter in the wild jungle. The hope is that the ethic affects positively. So much occurs in the wild that action is not always intentionally demoralising. Certain bigotry is learned combined with the positive ethic concerns only one family with alien outsiders. Bigotry may also emerge on the hunt. Losing a job or failing a quota seeks rationale that startles the benefit self-loathing model. Losing oneself in the darkness of the jungle fires warning shots at others. Preaching about other’s failures refusing to accept accountability for personal sins. The principled remain calm in deplorable situations, staying true to their convictions. Yet the obstacles do not diminish their out hand in their faults. 

The ethic is the starting point to paint a moral picture for oneself. The individual crafts their behavioural patterns to mesh with others. Even the loner needs some company. Simple genuine respect to others is a novel beginning. The jungle is dark and scary. Unknowns canvass the area in pitch blackness. Figures are made out but there is little encroachment. The masks come off when genuine risk is involved. To be willing to unveil one’s self to the other. Speaking freely and honestly. The moral procedure is about doing right by oneself. Not feeling the need to exchange information with every stranger wandering the jungle. Taking initiative when one feels like it. To be poignant about one’s opinions and not back down from a mob. Live to one’s integrity and defy all those who wish to harm and seduce. Control is a favourite of the ethical groups. Listen carefully and read literally. Shut out that nonsense. The ethic is a foundational guide to live life peacefully and positively. 

Stubborn robots possess brutal linearity. Seeking the ethical makeup as the submission to the angelic overlords. There is no oscillation nor convergence. The dialectic is skewed to ferment a pressured appointment. The individual is jolly in the wild whereupon a hoard of brainless geese attack ferociously. Take his voice and carve up his pride. Lest a man have an opinion and hold it to himself. He need not even proclaim it but his actions speak louder than words. He is caught trespassing and sentenced for the firing squad unless he relents. Convert to the enemy’s side or else. Relinquish all evil thoughts. Yet this mild mannered chap is trying to live by his style away from conflict but conflict has found him. They have stormed the chapel where he was privately praying. Accused of praying incorrectly muttering jargon in perverse language without acknowledging the true deity.  His private quarters have been invaded firebombed by defective imbeciles on a mindless crusade.

Defecting from the ethic is heretical. The apparent uniform ethic upheld by the fewest of margins command the most vocality. Shouting and whining about their validity hinders the majority’s extensive complexity. All along the spectrum with contradicting views based entirely on moral conscious. Little to do with any preacher or complainer seeking military conquest. Rebelling against the standardisation eviscerates dogmatic coercion. Yet others are swept in by their rallying call. Only if united can the boogy monster be defeated. A cry into the fantasy of delusion but phobic obscurity haunts the nuanced. Falling in line to repel the dangerous foe. Propagandised to ensure the obvious predatory agent is victimised. The once nuanced now standardised wilfully forget their old habits and criminalise the remaining nuance. Taunting them into submission. So enmeshed in triumph their morals are secluded into sophist triviality.

Funnelling the foundational ethic into a fluid moralistic perspective enables a calming spirit. The ideals range in their associated personification. Parental guidance and environmental exposure imprints its impact on the growing perspective on others. Values introduced are the abstract yet iconographical in their seeming concretised implementation. It is a sign of particularist cultural identity. In relating to the outside, the abundance of complexity engenders integral measures to partake in the encounter with otherness. The semiotic alignment seeps beneath to the imagistic events over the socratic ideas. Slogans of modelled behaviour are a precursor to otherness attachment. An inevitable experience. Alone in the wilderness, recalling the ethical structure symbolises a starting point to relate to others. Indebted to youthful education to properly engage others. Ethic is imperfect in its realisation to societal engagement. A debt that is evolved and mastered in the individual’s relation to the societal picture.