learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by orangedino on September 26, 2020 18:02

We, as people, have the obligation to stop someone from doing something that could cause damage to themselves or anyone else. Cash knew that his friend was committing a crime that hurt a little girl and he did nothing to stop him from doing it. Even if he didn’t have a legal obligation to act, he did have a moral one.

Taking action can be hard sometimes, especially when there are many other witnesses. It is human nature to want to fit in and it takes a lot of courage to be the person who initiates that, when nobody else has. Auclair experienced this when he witnessed a man punching a little boy on a bus one night, (Nightmare on the 36 bus). Auclair wanted to do something to stop the man from hurting the boy, but nobody was doing anything about it so he felt out of place and did nothing.

Someone also may not take action not because they feel out of place, but it may be because they don’t feel required to, they feel like it is someone else’s responsibility to do something. This is called the Bystander Effect, and we can see it take place in the article “The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age”, when a man was running towards a burning building to see if anybody needed any assistance, and he saw a man just standing by the building taking pictures of it.

We cannot just sit back and watch as bad things are happening. If we have the ability to, we need to try and help people who need our help and stop people who are doing wrong. We cannot let our fear control us and convince us to do nothing, and we also cannot let ourselves think that there is no need for our help.

I agree that it is often fear and the feeling that it isn't our responsibility to act that causes Bystanders to watch as a bad situation unfolds before them, but I disagree that it is just this human nature to fit in that causes us to not react. Sometimes people don't get involved and wait for others because they have no idea what to do in that situation and is waiting for someone who is able to help. And we should sometimes sit down and not engage or get involved in what is occurred, because not all situations can be fixed by one person, and it might end up getting that bystander hurt.

But I do agree with you that Cash had a moral obligation to stop his friend, even if there wasn't a legal one. Legal obligations need to be rules that do not require bystanders to engage in whatever conflict they see, only report it as soon as possible. Although a law requiring Cash to act in his certain circumstances, and if he would have actually followed that law, would have possible ended with a life being saved, in other circumstances it could end up causing an innocent bystander their life.

Originally posted by BLStudent on September 24, 2020 13:02

From a moral standpoint Cash should have tried to intervene or at the very least he should have reported it immediately after i think he placed his loyalty to his friend over his empathy for a stranger but he was also likely worried he would incriminate himself if he reported it. If you witness a wrong it is your responsibility as a human to report it. There are of course different levels of wrong and if the wrong is very minor or victimless there isn't an obligation to report it but in this situation Cash's actions were disgusting.

There should definitely be laws requiring people in similar situations to cash to speak up and like we saw with the protests against him there are already societal standards against what he did but they don't carry appropriate consequences. we always have an obligation to act if someone is being hurt/victimized. For example in the iphone age article bystanders look on and took photos rather than doing the right thing which was to make sure the people in the building were ok or do something as simple as calling 911. It's ironic that with cell phones it should be easier than ever to be an upstander but in reality people have just as little empathy.

The hero effect article goes into depth about what all of us should try to be, not just to do the right thing but to have so much empathy that doing the right thing is second nature and instinctual.

I agree. The Iphone Age article is so relevant and so sad. So many people would rather get the perfect video for social media than help their community stay alive. It's the news' job to get the videos and pictures covered, it's our job to stand up for one another and be there when they can't. The man who ended up saving them shouldn't of had to do it alone because there's felt that "oh someone else will do it".

Originally posted by zooweemama on September 27, 2020 19:16

It is obvious David Cash should’ve done something about the situation, especially in this case because his friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer assaulted and killed an innocent young girl, Sherrice Iverson. If a person sees someone causing another person physical harm/ danger, it is moral to help stop it whether it be by them intervening or calling for help. However, in an interview Cash stated that because he didn’t know the girl personally, he didn’t feel obligated to help her, even though it could have saved her life. This us why I think Jeremy is also responsible for Sherrice’s murder because he had the power to (or at least try to) prevent it from happening. Thankfully today there are laws set in place for people like Cash who decide to be bystanders in situations like this.

In “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age”, Judy Harris says “the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation”. This isn’t an excuse as to why Cash didn’t do anything because there was no one else in the bathroom. He should’ve at the very least verbally tell Jeremy to stop, but instead he “gave a look”. “The Trick to Acting Heroically” might explain why. It mentions that one of the three reasons someone might help without thinking of the risk is the long-term relationship the two people have. While I don’t know how long Cash and Strohmeyer had been friends for, they were probably very close friends and Cash believes their friendship is very important to him, so by turning his friend into the cops, it would destroy the friendship and trust.

I think there are different rules depending on the severity of the “wrong” for example, if you see someone parked in a “no parking zone” and it's not causing someone else problems, then I don’t think it’s necessary to report it. On the other hand if you see someone is clearly in danger, feels unsafe, and/or needs help, I think you should always try to aid them or seek someone to help if you are unable to.

I do believe that Cash was trying to save his friendship, but it's sad to think that he wanted a friendship with someone who can rape and kill a 7 year old girl. I don't know how close they were and if this was a dark side they shared together, but he should've worried a little less about his grown a** friend and a little more about the innocence and future of Sherrice Iverson.

Originally posted by speedyninja on September 27, 2020 21:21

No two situations or people are exactly the same. It is also impossible for one to know exactly what happened and what other people were thinking in situations they were not a part of. Finally, it is hard to know how one would act in situations they were not actually in. All of these complexities make it a challenge to both create overarching rules that should guide behavior and to judge others actions. However, as humans living in a common society, certain standards of how people should act based on morals must be established for everyone’s best interest. In the case of David Cash, Jeremy Strohmeyer, and Sherrice Iverson undoubtedly this was a difficult situation that must be thought about carefully. But based on our societies commonly understood values, David Cash’s decision to be a bystander in the murder of Sherrice Iverson was wrong.

One important, common value that most humans share is empathy. For David Cash, this was clearly lacking when he decided to leave the casino bathroom where he last saw his friend restraining a young girl while muffling her screams. I believe that empathy, and even a more general value of caring for another human being should have governed his actions. As BlueWhale24 noted, it is important to put yourself in Sherrice Iverson’s shoes and ask whether you would have wanted somebody to help. This answer is clearly yes, but Cash failed to consider that he or someone he loves could be in a situation similar to the one Sherrice found herself in and he would want someone to help. In this case, Cash had the opportunity to help, but did not. Furthermore, based on the course of Cash’s actions, I think it is fair to assume that he did not care at all about Iverson let alone have empathy. Cash made the conscious decision to leave Iverson alone with Strohmeyer. It could be argued that Cash did not know that Strohmeyer would go to the extent of raping and murdering Iverson, and that therefore his inaction was less reprehensible. However, it is clear Cash knew Strohmeyer was doing something wrong, because he said he gave Strohmeyer a disapproving look. He could have stayed in the bathroom to figure out exactly what Strohmeyer was going to do, but instead he left not waiting to find out, showing how little he cared. Normally, I think people would have the necessary feelings of empathy and care to govern taking action and helping Iverson, but this was not the case for Cash.

At the very least, I believe everyone can agree that when someone witnesses a wrong as severe as Cash did, their duty is to report it to officials. For example, in the article, “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” Auclair at least reported the incident in an attempt to help the boy, although I would argue he and others on the bus could and should have done more. Cash, even after he knew that Iverson was a victim of murder, failed to complete this easy and low risk duty. However, I do believe that the nature of the wrong as well as other specific circumstances changes the rules about what a witness must do. If the wrong is far more innocent than rape or murder, for example cheating on a test, I do not see it as an obligation for someone who witnesses this to even report it. In a case such as this, I believe an excuse like, “it is not my business” is valid as nobody is being directly harmed by the wrongdoing. Also, in a case where a witness is outnumbered or outmatched by the wrongdoer(s) and would be putting themselves at risk, I do not think it should be expected that they actively intervene, but rather reporting it to officials, if possible would be enough. For example, in Erez Yoeli and David Rand’s article, although the American and British men bravely subdued the gunman, I do not think it was an obligation to do so considering the risk they put themselves in. Specific circumstances, in my opinion, determine the obligation a person has when they witness a wrong.

Rules that could apply regarding whether one must act or simply witness I think again depend on the circumstances. Building off of User1234’s comment that, “There should be laws put in place that state that you could be prosecuted if you witnessed a crime being committed and didn’t physically intervene, call the police, or ask for someone else’s help,” I believe that the severity of the crime should also dictate whether such a law would apply. If the crime involves the potential for physical harm, I agree. However, if it was a more minor crime such as public urination, this seems unnecessary to me. More importantly than legal laws, I think that societal “rules” of accepted behavior based on values such as kindness, empathy, and more should kick in to govern our actions. Again, depending on specific scenarios, these rules would undoubtedly change. I think it is impossible to simply say what is right and what is wrong or what should happen in general, as these situations vary greatly. Finally, I do think that it is our decision to always act, whatever that may mean based on given circumstances. This is definitely not easy, as it could be friends or family that you must take action against, you may feel uncomfortable doing so, or you could simply be having a bad day. However, as members of a common society guided by common values, it is our obligation to act, as we would want the same done for us.

I agree with the fact that a law requiring the reporting of any "wrongs" that threaten the safety of another human being, such as in the case of David Cash. I also agree that smaller crimes should not be given this same obligations, nor should people be forced to take physical action or intervene is the situation as it poses a risk to those that engage. Although I agree that Auclair and the others on the bus could have taken actions and helped the boy, I disagree that they should have done it (legally at least, morally they should have called the police). The bus incident would have fallen under the law that bystanders have to report any "wrong" that threatens the safety of another as the boy was being hit (which should never be allowed to happen), but everyone on the bus thought they were possible father and son, and the people did not want to get involved in family business. But the real issue was that no one reacted, instead they waited for someone else to take the first action, someone who might know better than them on how to proceed. While someone should have taken action even if they thought that, the man was drunk and already showing violence. Had the others engaged him, they would have probably also been hit, or worse. The only thing they should have done was report the crime. The other issue is, had Auclair and the others confronted the man and a fight broke out and the police did come, the drunken man would have been arrested. But had the "wrong" been less obvious, and the people on the bus were making conclusions based off of circumstantial actions that they witnessed, there would be the question of who to arrest as the people would be acting more as vigilantes instead of Good Samaritans.

Originally posted by BLStudent on September 24, 2020 13:02

From a moral standpoint Cash should have tried to intervene or at the very least he should have reported it immediately after i think he placed his loyalty to his friend over his empathy for a stranger but he was also likely worried he would incriminate himself if he reported it. If you witness a wrong it is your responsibility as a human to report it. There are of course different levels of wrong and if the wrong is very minor or victimless there isn't an obligation to report it but in this situation Cash's actions were disgusting.

There should definitely be laws requiring people in similar situations to cash to speak up and like we saw with the protests against him there are already societal standards against what he did but they don't carry appropriate consequences. we always have an obligation to act if someone is being hurt/victimized. For example in the iphone age article bystanders look on and took photos rather than doing the right thing which was to make sure the people in the building were ok or do something as simple as calling 911. It's ironic that with cell phones it should be easier than ever to be an upstander but in reality people have just as little empathy.

The hero effect article goes into depth about what all of us should try to be, not just to do the right thing but to have so much empathy that doing the right thing is second nature and instinctual.

I agree with Cash and his wrongdoings of being a bystander. I think having laws in which all people are required to speak up is very optimistic as there are many layers to certain situations. Some situations can have outside pressure to not speak up such as gangs. A situation like Cash should always be reported. But is a law going to push people in that position and with his mindset to actually report? We saw from the interviews Cash was in, he didn't feel any remorse or feel like he needed to be involved. I don't think a law will change anything for those people with similar mindsets.

Originally posted by speedyninja on September 27, 2020 21:21

No two situations or people are exactly the same. It is also impossible for one to know exactly what happened and what other people were thinking in situations they were not a part of. Finally, it is hard to know how one would act in situations they were not actually in. All of these complexities make it a challenge to both create overarching rules that should guide behavior and to judge others actions. However, as humans living in a common society, certain standards of how people should act based on morals must be established for everyone’s best interest. In the case of David Cash, Jeremy Strohmeyer, and Sherrice Iverson undoubtedly this was a difficult situation that must be thought about carefully. But based on our societies commonly understood values, David Cash’s decision to be a bystander in the murder of Sherrice Iverson was wrong.

One important, common value that most humans share is empathy. For David Cash, this was clearly lacking when he decided to leave the casino bathroom where he last saw his friend restraining a young girl while muffling her screams. I believe that empathy, and even a more general value of caring for another human being should have governed his actions. As BlueWhale24 noted, it is important to put yourself in Sherrice Iverson’s shoes and ask whether you would have wanted somebody to help. This answer is clearly yes, but Cash failed to consider that he or someone he loves could be in a situation similar to the one Sherrice found herself in and he would want someone to help. In this case, Cash had the opportunity to help, but did not. Furthermore, based on the course of Cash’s actions, I think it is fair to assume that he did not care at all about Iverson let alone have empathy. Cash made the conscious decision to leave Iverson alone with Strohmeyer. It could be argued that Cash did not know that Strohmeyer would go to the extent of raping and murdering Iverson, and that therefore his inaction was less reprehensible. However, it is clear Cash knew Strohmeyer was doing something wrong, because he said he gave Strohmeyer a disapproving look. He could have stayed in the bathroom to figure out exactly what Strohmeyer was going to do, but instead he left not waiting to find out, showing how little he cared. Normally, I think people would have the necessary feelings of empathy and care to govern taking action and helping Iverson, but this was not the case for Cash.

At the very least, I believe everyone can agree that when someone witnesses a wrong as severe as Cash did, their duty is to report it to officials. For example, in the article, “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” Auclair at least reported the incident in an attempt to help the boy, although I would argue he and others on the bus could and should have done more. Cash, even after he knew that Iverson was a victim of murder, failed to complete this easy and low risk duty. However, I do believe that the nature of the wrong as well as other specific circumstances changes the rules about what a witness must do. If the wrong is far more innocent than rape or murder, for example cheating on a test, I do not see it as an obligation for someone who witnesses this to even report it. In a case such as this, I believe an excuse like, “it is not my business” is valid as nobody is being directly harmed by the wrongdoing. Also, in a case where a witness is outnumbered or outmatched by the wrongdoer(s) and would be putting themselves at risk, I do not think it should be expected that they actively intervene, but rather reporting it to officials, if possible would be enough. For example, in Erez Yoeli and David Rand’s article, although the American and British men bravely subdued the gunman, I do not think it was an obligation to do so considering the risk they put themselves in. Specific circumstances, in my opinion, determine the obligation a person has when they witness a wrong.

Rules that could apply regarding whether one must act or simply witness I think again depend on the circumstances. Building off of User1234’s comment that, “There should be laws put in place that state that you could be prosecuted if you witnessed a crime being committed and didn’t physically intervene, call the police, or ask for someone else’s help,” I believe that the severity of the crime should also dictate whether such a law would apply. If the crime involves the potential for physical harm, I agree. However, if it was a more minor crime such as public urination, this seems unnecessary to me. More importantly than legal laws, I think that societal “rules” of accepted behavior based on values such as kindness, empathy, and more should kick in to govern our actions. Again, depending on specific scenarios, these rules would undoubtedly change. I think it is impossible to simply say what is right and what is wrong or what should happen in general, as these situations vary greatly. Finally, I do think that it is our decision to always act, whatever that may mean based on given circumstances. This is definitely not easy, as it could be friends or family that you must take action against, you may feel uncomfortable doing so, or you could simply be having a bad day. However, as members of a common society guided by common values, it is our obligation to act, as we would want the same done for us.

I agree with @speedyninja about their initial point, that it is difficult to gauge what is considered immoral or apathetic if it weren't for the established social rules in common society. The emphasis on empathy puts into focus how David Cash not only didn't take responsibility for being a bystander, as well as moving forward in ignorance despite the enormity of the information Strohmeyer revealed to him, but he still doesn't hold any regret for not stopping his friend. I also agree that the circumstances, aka the nature of the wrong, are the biggest factor when it comes to knowing when to physically intervene; that, even though we are held by a common duty to do something, we must think about how we can personally contribute in the most realistic way possible.

Originally posted by bebe on September 27, 2020 18:47

It is extremely safe to say that David Cash had a major moral and ethical failure the night he made the decision to exit the bathroom aware that his best friend had begun to assault a young child. As a human being, I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with a person who witnesses such an act and refuses to stop it. However, that is my opinion.

In 1999, the state of Nevada did not share that opinion with me. Although it has since changed, according to the law, Cash did nothing wrong, and therefore went unpunished. I am thankful that now, in most states, one would not get away with this crime again. Being a bystander should be considered as much a crime as being an accomplice. By watching something happen without trying to stop it or even report it, you are telling the predator that you see nothing wrong with what they are doing, and encouraging them to continue doing it.

However, as nice it would be to make something a law and expect everyone to follow would be foolish and overly optimistic. Especially in the case of being a bystander, there is an intense moral dilemma happening within the potential heroin. In fact, in “The Trick to Acting Heroically,” most heroes claim to have not put any thought into what they did, and just acted. Once a person takes more than a second to think about something, it is in our biology to start to weigh the potential outcomes and risks. Once we have identified our own personal risk, even if it is far more minute than the one we could stop, most people would err on the side of protecting themselves.

I can almost guarantee that the passengers on the “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” failed to act because they immediately began to make some sort of reason for it. One passenger directly said that they thought it was a family matter, and it would be uncalled for and impolite to insert themselves. A little boy was abused because the witnesses did not want to be impolite. That speaks to something deeply wrong with humanity, that we live by a set of norms that we would rather uphold than to save a life.

This failure of humanity was described really well in SippyCup’s perspective of David Cash’s thoughts. They speculated that Cash took that extra second to think and filled his head with the possible loss of a friendship and social fallout if he had acted.

Although there are lots of things going on in a witness’ head, I disagree with the point made by Thesnackthatsmilesback, that the fact that David was alone made it more excusable. In so many cases, one of the reasons that nobody does anything is because they just assume that someone else will do it. That is what happened in the tragic assault and death of Kitty Genovese. If you are alone, there is no reason for making that fatal assumption. You are the one responsible for attempting to stop it.

To be clear, I am in no way justifying Cash or any bystander who lets a crime be committed in front of them. I am only attempting to speculate into what could be going on in their head, and how our society has played a part in letting these crimes go unpunished.

I think your point of view is very interesting point of view you have bebe. I would have never of thought of there being a social aspect to David Cash's situation. You state that in David's head if he acted there could have been a social fall out between him and his friend group. He may have been ostracized for "snitching" on his friend, even though his friend was strangling a little girl. There is an emphasis on staying quiet and keeping secrets for your friends but there is a limit on how much you can keep to yourself, and I like how you touched on that point.

Originally posted by cherryblossom on September 27, 2020 09:32

Originally posted by ernest. on September 24, 2020 13:21

The obvious answer about Cash’s obligations, and our own, is that we are all bound to act when someone is in danger and when we have the power to intervene safely. Even if Cash felt that he could not safely step into the situation directly as he was watching, because he thought he himself would be in danger if he tried to stop Strohmeyer, we can all probably agree he was absolutely obliged to alert people in his vicinity and call 911. And the law (now) recognizes this.

The moral uncertainty comes in when we think about when we have an obligation to directly step in and stop something bad from happening in its tracks, especially when that requires us to put ourselves at risk. In the case of Cash and Strohmeyer, Cash should have done everything possible to top Strohmeyer. Never did he say he felt threatened or scared by Strohmeyer’s actions, and that they were able to continue gambling together for the night after the murder backs this up.

In terms of obligation to act, I think I’m more inclined to say people don’t have an obligation than to say they do when it comes to a dangerous situation. People should always alert authorities/some form of necessary help when something happens, and always directly intervene if it comes at no risk to them, such as if a person takes a serious fall on the street. However, when there is an active aggressor, there isn’t an obligation. I think common morals and values dictate that intervening and putting your life in danger to help would be the right thing to do, but it’s not compulsory- there’s a difference. I say this because, in both “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age,” and The Samaritans’ Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor?, the tendency of people to do nothing in cases where someone is in distress is documented as a psychological phenomenon, not just a bad choice (The Bystander Effect). Especially when there are also other people around, individuals are likely to do nothing or expect that someone else will be the one to act, and so one does. What’s more is that those who do act, according to the book, frequently have military backgrounds, indicating the instinct to act is often learned. Because of this, I hesitate to label inaction in such situations as complete moral failing or the equivalent of bearing culpability.

To be clear, I do not encourage inaction or think it commendable, and the broader societal implications of being a bystander are real. What happens when there is not one isolated incidence of aggression, but a movement, government, or authority that is acting unjustly? We can see how the need to act becomes all the more urgent. But, I believe these isolated incidences of physical aggression are different from a broader societal injustice, which more definitely requires action because much less risk is associated with it, and so I don’t think there is a straight out obligation to act in a dangerous situation.

Although @ernest makes some good points, I think that anybody who witnesses a wrongdoing or someone else in danger has the responsibility to act. Their inaction reflects their character, as it shows their lack of empathy and compassion for victims of distressing circumstances. However, @ernest says that they believe that individuals are obliged to call 911 for help. I believe that that action does count as acting in the situation. Calling authorities is just as beneficial as asserting yourself in the situation to stop the harm being done to individuals. Witnesses of wrongdoings should not hesitate to act just because there are others witnessing the incident. In addition, people with military background are not more qualified to act in dangerous situations than those who are without military experience. As upright individuals, witnesses have the duty to take action in a harmful situation, whether it is physical action or notifying authorities.

Although I agree with @cherryblossom that calling 911 counts as taking actin in a situation I think that yout must weighh the benefits when it comes to calling 911. Sometimes all 911 does is escalate the situation specifically the police. Especially in black and brown neighborhoods they can misjudge what is really going on due to their own biases and end up being a lot more harmful. So in these situations I think witnesses should not only call 911 in situations where they need help but should also turn to different mental illness hotlines or whatever is needed in the situation becasue those people have been traine to deescalate situations. Calling for help is important but it is also important calling for the right help.

Originally posted by orangedino on September 27, 2020 17:45

Originally posted by BLStudent on September 24, 2020 13:02

From a moral standpoint Cash should have tried to intervene or at the very least he should have reported it immediately after i think he placed his loyalty to his friend over his empathy for a stranger but he was also likely worried he would incriminate himself if he reported it. If you witness a wrong it is your responsibility as a human to report it. There are of course different levels of wrong and if the wrong is very minor or victimless there isn't an obligation to report it but in this situation Cash's actions were disgusting.

There should definitely be laws requiring people in similar situations to cash to speak up and like we saw with the protests against him there are already societal standards against what he did but they don't carry appropriate consequences. we always have an obligation to act if someone is being hurt/victimized. For example in the iphone age article bystanders look on and took photos rather than doing the right thing which was to make sure the people in the building were ok or do something as simple as calling 911. It's ironic that with cell phones it should be easier than ever to be an upstander but in reality people have just as little empathy.

The hero effect article goes into depth about what all of us should try to be, not just to do the right thing but to have so much empathy that doing the right thing is second nature and instinctual.

I find it interesting that more people should be taking action to help people since phones give us easy access to the authorities but people are actually taking less action. I think most people have the mindset that nothing is their problem when they aren't involved in the situation initially. And with everybody having mobile phones, everyone just assumes that someone else has already done something to help the situation.

It is interesting how you brought up the social standards of whether or not to speak up because it feels life that wasn't even going through Cash's head. For most people I think a big part of why they would help is due to societal pressure, to be the hero that everyone wants to be. But Cash clearly didn't care about being a hero but cared about maintaininig this pure image of his friend in his head and minding his own business. And in response to your cellphone I think that although having mobile phones sometimes makes people step back instead of running in head on, social media also tells us to step up. Today we are all super influenced by what is on our screens and sadly we see a lot atroscities but because we see this atroscities we know that we have to speak up or even worse things could happen. I find that my phone has made me a lot more empathetic and maybe if David had known more about sexual assualt he would have known how terrible it was and how he is obliged to stand up for someoe who cannot.