This Is Thom.
We had an enlightening discussion regarding wheather or not "deniers" of genocide should be given equal time with "scholars." I want to shift this lens a bit though, and investigate the effect that time plays on potency. The modern world is very sensitive to our recent history. We, especilly Americans, do our best to portray history in the worst possible light, the reason being, I believe, that in some way the West believes that this will make up for what they did in the past. But at what point do we stop caring? For example: if I could stop the massacre of Christians in ancient Rome, but in exchange I would lose Virgil and the arch and the innuemerable other contributons the Roman Empire has made to Western civilization, I wouldn't. Its simply too far removed from my expierience. In the end the fate of thousands of people who lived thousands of years ago ceases to have any weight. I would choose one great person from the past over thousands of nameless, faceless, non-entities. How do other people think about this?
So my question is: is there a lime limit? Is it human to "stop caring?" Is it a moral implantation? If we had a differant moral system would we care more? If we were a culture based in orality? Is there a reason to care about human death at all? Why? Just topics for discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't know if some people after an amount of time "don't care." I think it depends on the person first off. Secondly, I believe that the amount of "caring" may lessen, but, at least for me, never completely disappears. I personally am always sad to hear about any unnecessary death, especially on a large scale. I think I would care more if, for example, it wasa close friend or something, but I still, no matter how long ago regret when people are murdered.
I think it's to much to ask of a person to expect that they will truly be hurt by the loss of another life with which they have no connection to. Despite our immensely developed emotional structure, we still our animals at the core. In many ways it is natural to move on, and doing so should not be seen as a moral flaw of the human race. This doesn't mean that history's deaths don't matter, but that the present should not have to be weighed down by the distant past.
I don't think it is a 'time limit' so much as a lifestyle limit and the ability to relate. Perhaps so few people seem to be moved enough to do anything to stop the darfurian genocide because the people of darfur lead drastically different lives than we do, whereas during the holocaust, the jews were westerners and thus were more similar. I am definitely not saying this is okay, because in a perfect world everyone should care about everyone else no matter the culture or lifestyle. But there reaches a point where it is almost too much caring, because everyone has woes, and no one can bear that much sorrow.
This topic definitely reminds me of the David Cash video that we watched in class. He believed that he should feel no remorse or regret for the death of Sherrice Iverson because she was as equally removed from him as those starving in third world countries. First of all, I have great difficulty believing that he actually believes this. Secondly, I think that his view is rare because I believe that humans have very strong emotional responses to things that they witness and to people for whom they have affection.
What are your opinions on David Cash and his apparent lack of remorse or obligation for the death of Sherrice Iverson? Do you believe that people have an obligation to help others even if they are not intimately connected with them?
Post a Comment