Originally posted by SesameStreet444 on September 16, 2021 01:05
It seems as though in Cash's mind, the boundary between loyalty and morality are horribly clouded and misconstrued. His actions were not governed by general decency or humanity, but rather by who he cared about and who he simply didn't. Unfortunately for poor Sherrice Iverson, David had never met her before, and therefore felt no obligation to give her any help, even if it resulted in her own demise. Even if it meant her getting raped and murdered in a tragic bathroom located in a tragic casino. He was willing to let an innocent child suffer, all because he simply valued his pathetic relationship with the perpetrator even more. But regardless of what he believes, obligations do exist, especially in a scenario as extreme as David's, and personal connection shouldn't intervene with those obligations. Physical harm, assault, unprovoked behavior- these are just some of the things that qualify for some form of action from bystanders.
When reading the articles provided, I found some correlation between "Nightmare on the 36 bus" and David's story. An entire bus filled to the brim with people, collectively decided to do nothing when an old man suddenly assaulted a young child, punching him in the face and beating him to the ground. These, people, like David, were face to face with a brutal and dangerous scene, and yet they also had completely stopped in their tracks and looked away. The only difference that lies between the two stories is the level of remorse experienced afterwards, as David had felt absolutely none. These people weren't necessarily monsters, but their impending thoughts and overthinking prevented them from reacting sooner.
I think there is a grey area in regards to which situations require action and which ones don't, depending on the severity and consistency of the offense. If one's actions are mutually harmless to those around them, then it isn't necessarily something to be dwelled upon or phased by. There are certain justifications that make one's actions more understandable, or even relatable. Everyday people make questionable decisions, and while wrongdoings can and should be acknowledged by bystanders, they are also offenses that don't pose a serious threat to one's physical and mental well-being. However, a continual offense, or an offense that brings severe damage to others, is not up for debate.
I think the point you make about David's boundary between morality and loyalty is really interesting. Clearly in this situation he valued loyalty over what was right without even thinking, so maybe his instincts are to defend those who he is close to rather than doing the right thing (sort of the opposite of the NYT "The Trick to Acting Heroically" Article).