posts 46 - 56 of 56
Avatar
maladaptive dreamer
Posts: 3

Originally posted by MunchScream on September 09, 2019 16:22

I think Cash should have acted on his instincts. It is evident that something inside told him that what Jeremy was doing was not right. The fact that he gave Jeremy a look while looking over the stall shows this. However, his fear of getting too involved is what kept him back. When he stopped and thought about what would happen if he took action, he realized that he would be costing his best friend his future. [. . .] Everyone has a conscience, and doing nothing can weigh really heavily in the long run. It is human nature to protect each other, and we should always trust that instinct to do so.

While I agree with MunchScream's statement that it was fear that kept Jeremy from getting involved, I do not believe that it was David's instinct to do the right thing by helping Sherrice. In fact, I think that it can be argued that it was his instinct to save himself, and thus, he appropriately acted on his instincts. And while it is reasonable to assume that Cash's inaction was due to the fact that Jeremy was his best friend, there is no further evidence, other than his claims, that Cash cared enough for Jeremy to think about his future. I honestly think his failure to act was a deliberately thought-out weighing of the consequences of his actions. That is, he gauged what the consequences of intervening could be, and so decided that, ultimately, it was not worth risking his life. And his choice to remain silent, I think, might have been a desperate grab at normalcy, blissful and willing ignorance.

I also agree that everyone has a conscious but not that it is human nature to protect each other. Whilst that statement is true for the majority of people, there are some out there, whose natural instinct is self-preservation. And what of the others out there who are born with a lack of empathy, such as psychopaths/sociopaths? But that's a tricky subject to get into and even trickier to discuss accurately seeing as the average person (including myself) who isn't a psychologist will probably have lots of misconceptions about how they work. Anyway, I do think that the instinct to protect others should come naturally, but there's just some others who that won't apply to.

Avatar
maladaptive dreamer
Posts: 3

Originally posted by Strawberry222 on September 10, 2019 17:13

To make matters worse, Cash did not feel any remorse for his choice to do nothing in regards to the incident. In Brian McGrory’s “Nightmare on the 36 Bus,” Auclair regretted his decision not to speak up and help the boy. He felt extreme remorse for his actions. However, Cash had not even thought twice about what he chose to do.

A very interesting observation! I mentioned this in response to MunchScream's post, but I'll reiterate what I said. I believe that a possible reason for that lack of remorse is that Cash is a psychopath/sociopath. Now, I don't want to ostracize people who are actually psychopaths/sociopaths even more than they already are, but that lack of remorse/ability to empathize is said to be a common psychopathic trait. I'm not a psychologist, and therefore, do not have the qualifications to discuss this in detail, but I believe that it is still worth looking into. Now, the question is, if Cash were a psychopath/sociopath, would that change anything in how we view and judge his actions? Personally, I don't think any excuse is enough to redeem him of his inability to act and intervene (as that consequently led to Sherrice's death), but it does put things in a new perspective and may explain some of his actions.

Avatar
luneea
Posts: 1

Heroism: Human Nature or Encouraged Behavior?

In my opinion, David Cash’s actions were largely governed by an overthinking complex of sorts. In situations of panic, thoughts often run wild. Self-preservation is just as much a human instinct as cooperation. As Erez Yoeli and David Rand state in their article analyzing “heroic” human behavior, most “heroes” arise from moments where the hero in question did not stop to think about the consequences of their actions on their own life. In other words, they acted on their own instincts without any premeditated thinking, as seems to be wired into the human brain. This notion can be seen in Brian McGrory’s story about the young child on the MBTA bus. The bystanders who saw the incident occur on the 36 bus cite thinking that the occurrence was a family situation, where they should not get involved. Rather than act on instinct to save the child being hurt, the other passengers on the bus considered other factors before ultimately deciding the possible benefits of intervening did not outweigh the potential consequences. These are calculations the human brain makes constantly, and usually subconsciously. In the incident with the fire in Jamaica Plain as seen in Judy Harris’ article, a similar effect takes hold. A crowd gathers around the burning building while one man alone rushes into the building to attempt to save its inhabitants. Later, the man in question cites noticing things like the people filming the event only in retrospect: his first instinct was to save the inhabitants. Additionally, some feature of mob mentality may also have informed the decisions of the larger crowd filming the event on their cell phones. Perhaps it was seens as the status quo at the time to value one’s own life over those of the building’s residents, and thus that is what happened. Actions influence actions.

I believe that the level of obligation given to a witness of a crime has much to do with the nature of the wrong involved. Like it or not, many “wrongs” occur in society on each of its levels and to each possible extent: people bend the generally accepted rules, take advantage of people for their own personal gain, and even resort to outright hurting other individuals for a multitude of reasons. From a legal perspective, one must understand from a psychological viewpoint how these actions are processed in the brain: as Rand and Yoeli imply, heroic intentions do not trump the natural instinct of self-preservation. Thus, humans are usually not expected to give their own life for another, and that is why such actions have a governmental award associated with them; these are acts of bravery not seen in everyday life. Generally, from a bystander perspective, the obligation to intervene in a wrongdoing is strongest when the well-being of an individual is at risk, and the intervention has few or no long-lasting detriments to the person who steps in. Self-preservation is an important and acknowledged instinct of the human brain; that is why self-defense is legally considered a valid reason for physical violence. I don’t believe that we can simply ignore this facet of human nature when discussing these issues. In a situation like David Cash’s, where intervention likely would not have had any negative effects on Cash’s life besides a broken friendship, and the benefits included saving a life, intervention was expected, and in the present day legal terms dictate this very well. However, as the endless nuances of human life in society have proven, no law can dictate the “right” course of action in every situation that can ever arise, which is why legislation is bent in light of new and unique court cases. However, the current “mood” of laws in place that require bystanders who are able to without personal danger become upstanders seem to have the right idea.

Avatar
yellow and red
Posts: 3

Originally posted by Bostonian on September 09, 2019 21:27

Personally, I believe that David Cash Jr. had a responsibility to at least report what he saw. When he left the restroom, he should have immediately reported Jeremy Strohmeyer to the police and the security guards at the casino. As citizens of a ‘civilized’ society, we all have a responsibility to report crimes, especially such heinous crimes as murder, as soon as we are able. It is the reporting of crimes to the police by everyday citizens that keeps countries and communities as safe as they are. It does not specifically matter the nature of the “wrong”. Any serious wrong, including verbal threats, physical abuse, stealing, swindling, and identity theft, should be reported to the police.


Cash should not have let loyalty to his friend override the importance of Sherrin’s life. She was an innocent murder victim. When David saw Sherrin was in danger, he had a responsibility to get help.


However, I do not hold Cash entirely responsible for not opposing Strohmeyer in the precise moment David saw Strohmeyer restrain Sherrin, but he should have verbally condemned Strohmeyer when he saw what was happening instead of just giving Strohmeyer “a look”. The only excuse Cash has for not physically opposing Strohmeyer is if he felt his life was in danger, and that if he tried to go against Strohmeyer, he would lose. Then he should have quickly left, and tried to locate the security guards at the casino to go back and save her.


Cash not knowing Sherrin was no reason not to save her. Cash had an obligation to act. To report what he saw to the security guards and contact the police.


A New York Times article stated from the results of a study that, “Every day, decent folk do good. But… heroes don’t just do good — they do good instinctively.” Cash did not have to act instinctively to be a hero. He had twenty-two minutes to act, and still failed his responsibility to report what he saw to save a child from an unstable teenager.


Unfortunately, Sherrin’s murder has not been the only time witnesses stood by and did nothing to help in a situation. In 2000, in Boston, people just sat around on a bus while a man beat up a boy. They did nothing. That was not right. When someone is in danger, there is an obligation for bystanders to report or intervene on what is going on. An article posted on wbur, a news outlet, commented on the reactions of citizens to a house fire. It stated how in the current age, with cell phones everywhere, some bystanders' immediate responses were to take photos of the fire instead of seeing if anyone was in danger and if so, could they have helped the victims. This is not a good first response in order to save a life, but can provide valuable footage to document the disaster. It is not as bad as standing by and doing nothing, but is not an excuse to not try and save a life.


In short, when you see something wrong, intervene or report it. This way, people are saved and communities are safer.

I agree on what Bostonian says about David Cash in the sense that he had the obligation to act. David was the only person to be present while such a heinous act was happening, but in the whole 22 minutes he had to change his mind to go back and help Sherrice, he didn’t do it. And as Bostonian said, Sherrice didn’t require David to be a hero; just a decent person that would call for help.

Avatar
yellow and red
Posts: 3

Originally posted by proxy503 on September 10, 2019 18:46

In the Sherrice Iverson case, Jeremy definitely was culpable for the murder of her. However, it is hard to say if David deserved an actual punishment. Maybe he didn’t do anything to stop him because he was in shock if what he saw and also maybe he was scared that Jeremy would do something to him. However, he did say they were best friends so maybe he didn’t say anything to protect him. His beloved friend. Seeing what he says he saw, anyone and everyone would’ve intervened in some sort of way. I personally would’ve pulled him away from Sherrice and scolded him about what he was doing. Some people might not tell anyone else because then they would be breaking their friendship, but I personally would bring him to the police and report him for the nasty things he did to the poor little girl.

David was definitely wrong by not doing anything to stop it and yes he definitely should be punished for being a bystander and not stepping in or at least to call or tell someone about it. Some people, like the riders of the 36 bus, from Nightmare on the 36 bus by Brian Mcgrory, maybe didn’t step in because maybe they didn’t want to be involved in it, which could’ve possibly been the reason why David didn’t say anything about it.

Another reason, which was described by Judy Harris in her article “The Bystander Effect in The Cellphone Age”, is that maybe David was too focused on knowing what exactly happened so that he can tell people in his school of what he saw and sort of become a very important person.

As Erez Yoeli and David Rand said in their article “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, most people have the instantaneous instinct and they don’t think about doing anything they just simply do it. Many times, those people have medical backgrounds and so they are trained to be like that. They are trained to help others even if it threatens their life in any way, shape, or form.

Proxy503 says that they understand why David may not have wanted to report Jeremy because they were best friends. If I caught my best friend doing something questionable and bad, I’d certainly talk to them as well. However, I think that there are limits to this. What Jeremy did was COMPLETELY out of line and put someone else in harms way. Since David didn’t know Jeremy would kill Sherrice, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that part, but David saw a seven year old girl being restrained by Jeremy, who clearly has bad intentions. At that point, I feel that you would need to report such behavior after stoping him.

Avatar
Bostonian
Posts: 4

I disagree that Cash “should have acted on his instincts”. In my opinion, he did follow his instincts… his instincts to let his friend do what he did and then not report him. Instead of following his instincts, I think that he should have followed what the law would demand of him, and what would have been right for Sherrin. He should have put himself in her place, and then acted. Walking away and not saying anything was the worst that he could do. I agree with the rest of what is said, about not being a bystander when someone is in danger.

Originally posted by FHAO9578 on September 09, 2019 18:24

David Cash is a criminal, simply put, despite the fact that he was not held accountable for his reprehensible behaviour in a court of law. He should have been tried as an accessor to murder. I went on to watch more of the 60 Minutes episode about him, and the way he speaks about what happens makes it clear he has no remorse. He even states that if he could go back, he doesn't think he could change anything about what happened. Instead of cowardice and blindly siding with his friend, Cash should have listened to his conscience, if he has one, and if not, he should have relied on his ability to tell right from wrong, the same ability that prompted him tap Jeremy on the shoulder, to tell him the right thing to do. The more I consider it, the more I become baffled by Cash’s path of action. Basic morality should have told him to do something, and yet, he didn’t. The Bystander effect, which was described in the article The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age by Judy Harris, shouldn’t even be in effect here to prevent him from doing anything- he’s completely alone, with no one else to stop the proceedings, thus making him feel less accountable for the events. Cash acted in the same way as the passengers did on the route 36 bus in the article Nightmare on the 36 Bus by ignoring the situation- except he cannot really claim to be wholly unaccountable for the terrible deed committed by his friend, thinking that someone else would step in, as the Bystander Effect describes. It’s plausible that he might be a sociopath- at least that offers some explanation to behavior I can't conceive of. Every person should be held legally (and morally) accountable for reporting violent crimes, especially if it's clear what is going on. I completely agree with user MunchScream when they say, “Personally, I believe that we as humans hold a responsibility to act at all times.” For lesser crimes, like petty theft and the like, should not have a legal obligation to report, seeing as they are not physically harming someone and are relatively smaller crimes, while morally wrong. There is no reasonable way to uphold a law including that kind of clause, anyhow- and regulating citizen behavior to that degree is inadvisable, and hard to execute.

Post your response here.

Avatar
shamrock5507
Posts: 3

Originally posted by Bostonian on September 09, 2019 21:35

Originally posted by badwolf on September 09, 2019 20:47

This situation with David Cash is very complicated yet simple: Cash should’ve intervened and his failure to do so makes him partially responsible. I agree with the argument FHAO9578 makes in that the Bystander Effect does not even apply to him and he should be tried. As stated in the article by Judy Harris, the Bystander Effect takes place when many people witness something happen, and do nothing assuming someone else will. This is also shown in the McGrory news clipping “Nightmare on the 36 Bus.” No one helps the little boy even when he is clearly being assaulted and abused by the adult. “The Samaritan's Dilemma” details the moral battle that entails when deciding whether to get involved or stay on the sidelines. It’s a matter of self preservation and common sense. But most (if not all) heroes don't even think twice before intervening.

Cash is the worst type of bystander. He definitely could’ve prevented the situation. The fact that in the 60 Minutes episode he didn't even express remorse is almost horrifying. But in his tapping of the shoulder, in his witnessing of the crime, he acknowledged the situation and therefore must be implicated. It is almost as bad as if he had committed the act himself. I agree with MunchScream in the fact that we, as members of society and human beings, should always intervene in some way. Whether it be distancing from the situation and calling the police, or actually getting physically involved. We have the power to act, and we must take it.

It’s complex to try to unravel and dictate every situation in which someone must take action, and under what terms they could be implicated as being an active bystander and prosecuted. If anything, take it case by case. All I know is that David Cash should have been tried and put on probation at the minimum. It is our job to not let things like this happen. The Bystander Effect is a disease. Don’t get infected.

I agree with much of what is stated here, except for the statement "But in his tapping of the shoulder, in his witnessing of the crime, he acknowledged the situation and therefore must be implicated. It is almost as bad as if he had committed the act himself." It is not almost as bad as if he had committed the act itself, in my opinion, because the crime done takes a certain mind and willingness to commit the wrong. David did not play a role leading up to what happened, thus I think cannot be implicated in an "almost as bad" statement. However, I agree that what David did was irresponsible and he should be tried for not intervening. Letting the crime happen and not reporting it is almost like giving his approval. A crime of the murder of an innocent young girl. For not doing anything in such a situation, David should have been tried.

I mostly do agree with Bostonian said. I do think that David should be tried for not saying something. I also agree with the fact that him not reporting it or telling Jeremy to stop isn't "as bad" as what Jeremy did. However they said "because the crime done takes a certain mind and willingness to commit the wrong" I think that this statement also applies to how David didn't say anything about what happened. I think that in order for someone not to intervene with a little girl being murdered you have to have a very similar mindset as to someone who does kill someone. However I do not think that what David did was as bad as what Jeremy did

Avatar
Bostonian
Posts: 4

Look Beyond Your Friend

Originally posted by MunchScream on September 09, 2019 16:22

I think Cash should have acted on his instincts. It is evident that something inside told him that what Jeremy was doing was not right. The fact that he gave Jeremy a look while looking over the stall shows this. However, his fear of getting too involved is what kept him back. When he stopped and thought about what would happen if he took action, he realized that he would be costing his best friend his future. Cash stated that he does not want to be bothered with someone’s problems when he does not know them that well. When he stopped and thought about the consequences of his actions, he decided to act in favor of someone he knew better- Jeremy. However, once someone witnesses a crime, they are now part of it because they acknowledge that something wrong is happening. Whether they do something about it or not will deem them a hero or one of the villains. In the example of cruelty against an animal or another human being, there should never be bystanders. Human beings need to work to defend each other from harm at all times. The “rules” of a witness get a bit more complicated when the crime is not necessarily hurting anyone. If someone is stealing, offering to them to pay for it would be an ideal course of action. However, the owner of the store should be notified and they can choose what to do then. Personally, I believe that we as humans hold a responsibility to act at all times. We should always hold the safety of others and ourselves at the highest priority. In the instance of the “Nightmare on the 36 Bus,” Daniel Auclair should have acted on his instinct to protect the child. In terms of today’s cell-phone age and the Bystander Effect that comes with it, people need to realize that documenting a tragedy that is happening in front of them is not helping. News stations and newspapers praise those who took videos of crimes since it spreads awareness on the issue, but something is disturbing and ghoulish when people are filming a house fire like it is a phenomenon to admire. Connecting this to the “Bad Samaritan” case, filming a tragedy, like a house fire, makes someone feel like they contributed to the situation. Later that day when the news reports on the event, they can say that they were there, they saw it, they were scared too. However, they were not involved enough for the event to heavily impact their lives (or so they thought). According to “The Trick to Acting Morally,” people who act on their instincts never regret their actions. They oftentimes feel relieved that they have saved someone from something horrible instead of watching it happen. Everyone has a conscience, and doing nothing can weigh really heavily in the long run. It is human nature to protect each other, and we should always trust that instinct to do so.

"I disagree that Cash “should have acted on his instincts”. In my opinion, he did follow his instincts… his instincts to let his friend do what he did and then not report him. Instead of following his instincts, I think that he should have followed what the law would demand of him, and what would have been right for Sherrin. He should have put himself in her place, and then acted. Walking away and not saying anything was the worst that he could do. I agree with the rest of what the post states about not being a bystander when someone is in danger. "

Avatar
ahaha633
Posts: 3

Moral Obligations

The violence and sheer malice that Jeremy Strohmeyer exhibited when assaulting and murdering the 7 year old Sherrice Iverson should have been a clear sign for Strohmeyer’s best friend, David Cash, to intervene. However, Cash simply tapped his friend on the shoulder, gave him a “look,” and exited the scene of the crime 2 minutes later, leaving Sherrice victim to rape and murder. Cash’s display of passivity is an example of the “bystander effect,” leaving others in danger in an effort to save oneself; it is a true test of morality and one’s altruism.

It is very frightening to hear of such cruel acts involving innocent children such as Sherrice. A similar occurrence, as described by Brian McGrory in “Nightmare on the 36 Bus,” involved an 8 year old boy being assaulted as the other passengers simply watched. Each person assumed someone else would stand up for the boy, but no one did. A firsthand account reports that he does feel remorse and wanted to intervene, but he felt it wasn’t his place to stand up to the perpetrator. This passivity becomes fatal when people like Sherrice Iverson are killed, despite having the opportunity to be saved by onlookers.

An interesting detail of David Cash’s account of the story is that he feels no remorse for having been a bystander. Erez Yoeli and David Rand in “The Trick to Acting Heroically” emphasize that when people do good and “upstand,” they do so instinctively and often without second thoughts. In Cash’s case, he had the opportunity to consciously decide whether to do good or bad. This means he had the time to think through his actions very carefully, consciously choosing to leave the scene and leave Sherrice to the wrath of Strohmeyer.

As Deborah Stone explains in The Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor, it is common for many people to act “heroically” when they imagine themselves or someone they care about in the victim’s position. In David’s case, he makes it clear that he didn’t act on the crime occurring right in front of his eyes, simply because he had no relation to Sherrice. This is the logic he uses to justify abandoning her and leaving her in the hands of his extremely violent friend, leading to her tragic death. There is clearly something wrong with his moral compass, assuming he had some sort of conscience, that lets him feel no empathy for people who are suffering right in front of him. It is honestly sickening to hear how he feels absolutely no moral obligation to help this innocent child, and worse that there are no repercussions for this act of ignorance.

Avatar
ahaha633
Posts: 3

Originally posted by FireGushers on September 10, 2019 21:02

I believe that David Cash should have been held accountable for his actions. He was a passive bystander who realized and acknowledged the fact that his best friend Jeremy was doing something extremely wrong. Him saying that he just simply tapped him on the shoulder and gave him a “look” just digs him in a deeper hole. When you recognize something is wrong, and you have the power and ability to stop it, you should act on it. David Cash’s actions were just simply not enough. David had multiple chances to act on his feeling that something wasn’t right but he didn’t act on it. First, he had the chance to get Jeremy out of the women’s bathroom in the first place since, after all, it’s the women’s bathroom. He had the chance to step in and stop Jeremy when he saw what it was happening. He had the chance to report to someone that Jeremy had confessed to murdering and assaulting Sherrice. Which brings up the question for me, how many chances would it have taken for David Cash to report the incident? The saying is, “see something, say something” . To put it simply, David Cash did not have morality to say something when he saw something that was obviously wrong. In Deborah Stone’s The Samaritan’s Dilemna, a lot of the heroes who were put in such situations had answered the question, why did you step in, with the answer that they consider the people as their own family and friends. Cash, as was presented in class today, just did not take enough time during those two minutes to think about what was going on and realize that he should’ve intervened. In the Bystander Effect, it’s explained that the Bystander Effect takes play when you are with other people but David Cash wasn’t alone so why didn’t he act. He shouldn’t have even been affected by this effect. Like the other people on the bus in the Nightmare on the 36 bus, David Cash was an onlooker. Those citizens sitting on that bus that did nothing while the little boy was getting punched did nothing, that’s almost like silently approving what the man was doing to the boy. I agree with Sleepy when they say that “In this case, doing nothing was equally as much of an action as stopping his friend would have been. He didn’t just do nothing, he chose to help Jeremy. It’s like a getaway car for someone whos robbing a bank”. I believe that when there are these types of situations happening, and one is there to witness it and has the ability to stop them from happening, you should stop it. Being an onlooker is not enough, you are basically allowing whatever is happening to happen. If you see something, please just say something. It’s the least you could do but it could go a long way, especially in the case of David Cash.

This message of seeing something and saying something is very important in this particular case as well as in every situation involving the bystander effect. Why didn’t Cash notify anyone, even when Strohmeyer openly admitted to the murder? I agree with both FireGushers and Sleepy when they emphasize that Cash’s passivity is a means of Strohmeyer getting away with his cruel actions. Without showing any concern at all for Sherrice or even Stohmeyer’s outburst of violence proves that Cash is not capable of using empathy. Empathy is necessary in being a kind and considerate person, or even a decent person unlike David Cash. It is a blatant way of saying that he does not care at all about Sherrice or what happened to her; what only matters is that he saves himself.

Avatar
ahaha633
Posts: 3

Originally posted by maladaptive dreamer on September 11, 2019 03:39

I think the moral obligation to help another fellow human being should have governed Cash’s actions. If he had feared for his life, then fine, maybe he didn’t have to intervene by engaging with Jeremy himself, but at the very least, Cash should have reported the assault. As we had read in Brian McGory’s article, “Nightmare on the 36 Bus,” all of the passengers on the bus watched on as a little boy was beaten by a man much older and much bigger than he was. There were certainly enough people to overpower the man, and yet, all of them watched on silently. It’s understandable to fear and hold one’s life over the life of another’s, and clearly they feared the drunken man, but there’s a limit to how long one can remain the inactive bystander.


The people on that bus had several other options besides intervening directly. For example, they could have called the police or the bus driver could have put on the emergency call for help sign. Reporting the incident was the bare minimum of what they could have done right. Instead, all of them kept their mouths shut and heads low in the face of one man’s inebriated act of brutality against a small and helpless child.


In short, a person who witnesses a wrong should at the very least, report that wrong, not only for themselves but for the betterment of society and how effective enforcing justice is. There is no need to be a hero and rush to fight off an attacker, no need to make a citizen’s arrest, but there is something intrinsically wrong and immoral with remaining in blissful ignorance (though most times, it is not so blissful, and the guilt and shame of inaction will weigh heavily on the person’s psyche).


None of us have an obligation to act in a way that will put our own lives in danger. In most dangerous and life-threatening situations, the average person will gauge their next course of actions by how easily the problem can be resolved with their intervention, and by how much of a risk they’ll be putting themselves in by doing said intervention. As Judy Harris’s article, “The Bystander Effect In the Cellphone Age,” relates, the bystander effect happens when “the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.” In that article, a fire had broken out in an apartment and while authorities were contacted, the majority of the people who had gathered around the fire watched on as the flames blazed and decided that it’d be best to record the fire instead of warning any potential people still inside.


In this situation, there is a disconnect with reality, especially so when they pull out their phones to record as they are literally seeing it happen through a screen, despite being at the scene. No one likes to think of immediate threats and their consequences. Perhaps, it hadn’t even crossed their minds that people might still be inside the building.


Just as acting heroically is allegedly an unconscious reaction that leaves no room for thought (as Erez Yeoli and David Rand’s “The Trick to Acting Heroically” states), being a bystander is an unconscious reaction, one that is propagated by the disconnect when in a situation of immediate threat or danger, whether it be our lives or others’. All of the news people tend to hear about are bad and negative, and with the aid of the internet, are constantly and consistently exposed to the negative and egregious happenings of the world. It has led to desensitization and more than likely explains why so many people remain the bystander.


But in the end, if someone’s life is in danger, one is obligated to act. Even a simple call to the authorities is better than doing nothing. And for one, people in numbers always outmatch the one dangerous man. Of course, one should always deliberate on the risks of intervening, but in most cases, people will die without immediate intervention. It is your job as a human being in this society to act accordingly, any action is better than none and thus, unwittingly enabling the perpetrator.

I fully agree with this message. As maladaptive dreamer says, “There is no need to be a hero and rush to fight off an attacker, no need to make a citizen’s arrest, but there is something intrinsically wrong and immoral with remaining in blissful ignorance.” When the helpless boy on the 36 bus was brutally beaten, not even one person tried to stand up to the man. The victim was a literal child, who couldn’t possibly have defended himself. How can someone let that happen? Why would you choose to save yourself when a helpless child’s life is at stake? This is true as well for the Sherrice Iverson case, in which Cash consciously decided to let a 7 year old girl be killed in an effort to save himself. Cash acted selfishly and inconsiderately, which cannot be morally tolerated.

posts 46 - 56 of 56