I. At its foundation, morals and ethics should have governed Cash's actions. I think it's fair to say that any considerate person who have attempted to intervene in the situation, if not also reported it. People who witness wrongs have an obligation to prevent the wrong from continuing when it causes pain and detrimental effects. Similar to the idea of the Veil of Ignorance, the people witnessing the wrong could have been the victim and certainly would not want the harm to persist. Thus, we should feel sympathy for others and an obligation to step in when they need help. However, to be realistic, we cannot expect everyone to have certain morals; this is where laws come in. Laws enforce common logic and morals that everyone generally accepts and that can lead to harms for another person or thing. Obviously there will be slight differences when it comes to different scenarios of "wrong," but our first instinct should generally be to stop the "wrong."
II. We should always try to act if there is significant harm being done to another person, if it is being inflicted upon them unjustly, and if you are able to help. As with anything, there are exceptions to the obligation to act. There will be circumstances where the cost to help is too great or illogical. For instance, if someone is being shot and the only way to change the outcome is by stepping in front, you will not affect the "wrong," but merely change the victim of the "wrong." The cost was incredibly high, and it was illogical in that it did not "diminish" the "wrong." You would be heroic if you stepped in, but there's arguably less of an obligation.
III. The New York Times article on the idea of the instinct to act heroically also highlights certain factors that would lead to a situation where an obligation exists, and emphasizes the idea that people who instinctively act are true heroes. It's true at face value, however, it dismisses the need to protect oneself and to calculate other factors. When you continuously prioritize others over your own health and wellness, it can cause damage to not only yourself, but also your loved ones. Moreover, if you do not account for other factors, acting spontaneously can lead to more consequences. For instance, you may not have the correct expertise or equipment, and by inserting yourself into the situation, you are only making it harder for everyone involved and wasting your potential. On a completely different note, the WBUR article on the relationship between cellphones and bystanders shows the exact opposite. People now instinctively act as bystanders rather than helpers because we have normalized the constant intake and viewing of wrongdoings through social media apps on our phone. Similarly, many of the witnesses pulled out their phones to document the a building on fire, instead of trying to warn residents inside. This article thus raises questions on how does one act or "help" when they see something wrong. How much are we obligated to doing? What even constitutes as helping? Who is responsible for certain methods of helping when there are a group of people?