Ethics

Some time ago I came to know about two horrible stories that happened in my city, one leading to the death of a young child, the other about a 12-year old raped by a 16-year old. Of course, events like these happen everywhere, all the time. We know about major wars and famines, but horrible suffering is happening somewhere at any time. My question is how should we (people who have more or less privileged lives) live with it? I'm not interested in religious answers or worldviews. I guess trying not to think about other people's suffering is not an acceptable response. The other extreme attitude, to go and try to fight suffering where you're more needed, with all your means, is something for saints, not something you could tell everybody to do. The problem is that intermediate ways also seem disrespectful towards those who are suffering most, and if they are the only possible reactions they should still leave us unhappy.

Comments

Very tough questions that have implications for any person who knows of situations you describe --and those situations that are more extreme as well as those involving less violence. You note that you are not interested in a response that appeals to world views or religious teachings on such matters. I accept this constraint in offering a reply. There are various factors that come into play in thinking through the cases you note --I will put this in the plural form as your questions concern so many of us:

Are WE in any sense responsible if only through neglect or not taking any action to secure the safety of the cities or places where we live for these crimes --or wicked or tragic events? If we are guilty or at least not clearly innocent then I suggest we have some responsibility to care for the victims or, in the cases you cite when there are deaths, to care for the families of victims and their immediate communities. And I suggest that, if we are indirectly responsible for these tragedies we have a comparable or at least equal obligation to work to insure that the victimizers who directly did these crimes are identified and punished or treated or constrained so that they are not able or unlikely to commit further acts of violence. I write about those who directly did these crimes to distinguish their role as agents from ours as bi-standers or those who have been negligent in allowing such horrors to occur. I believe this judgment about our obligations is widely supported by most secular theories of responsibility and justice, and it would receive overwhelming support from a variety of world views and religious ethical traditions --which you have asked to be off limits in this exchange.

If you and I or we are NOT indirectly responsible, I suggest we would still have an obligation to do the above, but this would be slightly less than absolutely decisive and unavoidable. For example, imagine that we are doctors who are spending all our time and resources to fighting ebola, and none of the cases of ebola involve murder, rape or direct criminal acts. In this case, our obligation to continue working to combat ebola might trump our obligation to address -personally address and redress-- the cases you cite. Though if we doctors were in a cases where we INDIRECTLY enabled such crimes, then I suggest we would have an obligation to take action to correct this. So, imagine that those we cure of ebola have been largely those who are criminals and, upon being released from quarantine, they commit acts of rape and murder. It may not be obvious what we should do about this, but surely we cannot ignore our role in helping victimizers rather than victims and reverse our practice in some way.

In general, in cases when we do take action, we might have to consider what is truly motivating or should motivate us into action... Are we principally concerned to preserver our innocence or our not being blame-worthy? Or are we driven simply to do the right thing? Or should we consider the heroic what you were referring to as the saint's example of doing the thing that should be done, even if it is beyond the line of duty and involves our shouldering a burden or taking risks that others who could do the same do not do?

I know that simply raising the question about what sort of question should vex us is hardly the most helpful reply, so I will cut to the chase: I propose that all of us and hence each of us-- who are in a situation where we know of the rape and death you mention and cases like that are under an obligation to take action in preventing future crimes and caring for victims -and we are indecent if we refrain from doing so. I confess that my reasons are not entirely secular, but whether you are part of a religious tradition that teaches one should care for the vulnerable the tradition I belong to puts this in terms of loving one's neighbor as oneself' there are a great many examples of when individuals do SOMETHING --even if not, taken alone, it seems insignificant this can sometimes cumulate into making a cooperative, significant difference. In the city I live in, when food and shelter were in short supply several years ago during a dangerous winter, a single person made sandwiches and went round asking well-off citizens to donate their clothes that he then gave to the homeless. At first, his act seemed so slight as to be as absurd as trying to stop a dangerous, out-of-control forest fire by throwing a cup of water on the oncoming flames. But, his action was noticed. Within less than two months a virtual army of volunteers had joined him and they worked not just on sandwiches and clothes but on shelters. I am not that person, nor am I a saint. But the example of that man has led me to make greater donations than I would have and....who knows? Perhaps at some point you and I might be so inspired that we meet up when trying to make some important, practical, material changes in our communities to confront those horrible crimes that prompted you to write 'Askphilosophers' and for me to write this reply. The key, I think, lies in what you hint at in the question: surely not thinking about these hardships cannot be the answer or the best response. Moreover, if we conclude that each of us drop all other tasks to give our utmost to address these horrors, we are likely to end in despair or feel overwhelmed. Perhaps the answer lies in the person known for a while in my city as "the sandwich guy" is the true philosopher --literally the lover of wisdom philosophy coming from the terms for love and wisdom --do SOMETHING and while it at first seems insignificant, it might be the start of something beautiful.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Ethics