The most recent issue of Time Magazine's cover reads, "What Makes Us Good/Evil." It discusses the difference between good and evil actions and why they are committed. This made me think about today's discussion about Hannah Arendt and her statement about the "banality of evil." This article states that "The notion of 'the other' is a tough one for Homo Sapiens. Sociobiology has been criticized as one of the most reductive of sciences, ascribing the behavior of all living things- humans included- as nothing more than an effort to get as many genes as possible into the next generation." Earlier the article had stated that there was "a time when the welfare of [one's] tribe was essential for your survival but the welfare of an opposing tribe was not - and might even be a threat." So, if sociobiologists are correct and this is all largely based on evolution (Are they? Is it? What do you think?), is the whole "us and them" mentality "banal"? Is a mentality able to be banal if the events that result form that mentality are far from banal? What do you think about Arendt's statement in general? Do you agree, disagree?
Another part of the article talked about proximity to someone in danger and how it relates to a person's perceived responsibility in helping that person. This question came up in class discussion today: Where is the line drawn for how close you have to be to a genocide in order to be held repsonsible for being a bystander? SHould bystanders in the US during the Holocaust (especially during the strict immigration policy) be held as responsible as bystanders in Germany? Why or why not? The article states that "Our species has a very conflicted sense of when we ought to help someone else and when we ought not, and the general rule is, Help those close to home and ignore those far away." So is that "general rule" human nature, wrong, both or neither?
One last thing the article talks about is a Good Samaritan Law in places like France which essentially makes it illegal to be a bystander to any event where another is in danger. The laws "require passerby to assist someone in peril." If David Cash had lived in France today he legally could have been convicted under this law. What do you think about this? Is this considered legislating morality? Is legislating morality ok? How can you tell which laws are legislating morality and which aren't?
(Also interesting is the morality quiz, a lot of these questions will be familiar from B&B but I thought it was still thought-provoking to see what percentage of people considered different options to be moral.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I remember a lot of these questions from B&B. I think it is true that it is difficult to be at a certain proximity to a victim. I took the quiz and I would find it a lot more difficult to suffocate someone to save others than to throw a switch to essentially do the same. I think it brings up the point of responsibility, what would you be willing to be held accountable for?
To address the good samaritan question, I think it woud be difficult to regulate morality, however there needs to be some defense against cases like David Cash. To be unable to hold him accountable leagally for what happened is awful. I think that the law would have to say specifically that you wouldn't have to directly interfere if you felt at risk, but you would have to report it to someone. It could lead to infractions on personal liberties, if people pushed for too many moral regulations, but I think for the most part it would be a positive change from letting Cash walk away.
Katie, I really like what you posted in your first paragraph. I think that the connection you drew is very interesting. In response, I think that yes, the us vs. them mentality is banal. While we talk about us vs. them in the context of genocide, it also applies to everyday situations. It is common for us as humans be part of a group identity so we feel welcomed and in place. Sometimes group mentality can get so strong to the point where groups become more isolationist. I think that the strongest mentally banal us vs. them scenario is among racial groups. It is natural for people to gravitate towards others who share the same background; this bond may create tension between racial groups. Since this us vs. them scenario may not lead to any killings like during a genocide, I would say that the idea of us vs. them is mentally banal even though we may not realize it. I am NOT saying that i think us vs. them is a good thing, but rather common and somewhat unavoidable. My question is, how is "us vs. them" different from a strong exclusive group identity (if you think it is...)?
Like Gaby, I also remember talking about proximity to a victim and whether or not it is moral to take any action in B&B last year. I, however, when taking the morality quiz chose the "I would not" option every time. I think proximity to a victim (and personal connection) do make a difference in a person's choice, but I couldn't be held responsible for another human's death.
i think that while legislating and regulating morality would be near impossible, there is a part of me that wants to believe it could work for the sake of a more humane world.
It was evident that people like David Cash made our entire Genocide class cringe. Even based on that very limited reaction to a bystander, there is no denying that neglecting to act in the face of inhumanity registers as wrong, or even evil to the average person. This having been said, we then find ourselves in an area of gray. How can we possibly begin to hold people accountable for such inaction? And wouldn't every person who knows about any injustice that is going on in any part of the world today then be classified as bystanders?
These are the kinds of problems that a society would run into should they try to define and regulate morality. However, one has to wonder what the future would hold for a society that placed a greater emphasis on enforcing moral behavior. Problems/complications/impossibilities aside, would this society become a more humane place over time? What would it look like? Would such legislation lead to more tolerance and kindness, or would it fuel more animosity and resentment?
hard to say...
I was actually just going to post on this article because I found it interesting for the same reasons. Thanks, Katie!
I think the problem with Good Samaritan Laws is that it what did not take place will never be known. It is conjecture to assert that someone definitely, 100% could have made the situation better or had the potential to do so. Of course most of us will agree that David Cash COULD have done something to stop his friend, yet at the same time, he can easily argue that he could not, thus, it is shaky and unsound to base an argument on your belief that he could have stopped him. This again holds true with trying those in Nazi Germany. As Goering points out, in some cases, you can't prove whether or not someone actually knew something (ie a lower-ranking officer). This also reminds me of our discussion in class about whether or not Nuremberg served as a deterrant for future genocies. Once again, the disadvantage we always have while looking back at history is that we can never answer the "What Ifs" and so sometimes it is difficult to make judgments.
In addition, the article also raises the problem of morality being somewhat relative. Putting this in the context of the Holocaust, as well, what if someone believes that what they're doing is beneficial to their country and were so misinformed that they believed the Holocaust was truly necessary for the success of Germany? Can they be held responsible? Could the leaders of the Holocaust have also argued this point?
maybe i've asked this before... but...
are we legislating morality NOW? for instance, the law states that murder is a punishable offense. is this legislating morality? how is it different from the good samaritan law?
goering claimed that he obeyed orders for the good of the country, and evidence can't prove him wrong. if this is good enough reason for someone to be aquitted, then goering is "innocent."
-coe
To answers Coe's question - I think that the current laws that are legislating morality to some extent (such as don't kill) are different than good Samaritan laws because, as Melanie said, there is no way to know if an individual could have actually changed the situation.
A person committing murder, if found guilty, could have easily saved the individual's life by not killing him or her. a bystander, may or may not have been able to. I think that that is the main distinction between the laws that are currently legislating morality.
Post a Comment