learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by arcoiris18 on September 22, 2022 18:21

I believe Cash should have put aside his personal connection to Jeremy Strohmeyer and inside acted with his morals. When he supposedly looked over the bathroom stall to witness Jeremy with Sherrice he would have understood what happening and how horrible his "friends" actions were. In "The Trick to Acting Heroically" by Erez Yoeli and David Rand when they asked the three American men and the British businessman who stopped a gunman’s attack what they were thinking about at that moment they said “It was just gut instinct...It wasn’t really a conscious decision.” That is how David Cash should have reacted, with his gut feeling even if he didn't know Sherrice he should have done the decent human thing and either stopped Jeremy or gone to go get help, that was his obligation as the only witness. David Cash should have prevented Jeremy from ever entering the bathroom and he should have at least gotten someone when he witnessed Jeremy bring Sherrice into the bathroom stall. Being a witness is a hard thing because the pressure of understanding what to do in a situation is difficult. I think there are different levels of being a bystander because it depends on the severity level of what you are witnessing. For example, it is much easier to turn your head at someone who is stealing food, because they mostly really need it, compared to seeing someone murder someone because there is very little justification for that. I think we have internal moral compasses that help to understand when to act even if we aren't conscious of it. Another way of being a bystander, especially in more modern times is recording or watching a recording of an act happening. In "The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age" by Judy Harris, she says, "My husband was incredulous that no one else thought to try to warn the residents, but instead were documenting the events for social media." In her article, she says the bystanders were more interested in documenting what was happening instead of helping. This level of documentation is important though because it then becomes evidence, recently in the police brutality cases, and they help to find people guilty who otherwise would have gotten away. It is still important to always think of helping first because if you hid behind your phone to gather evidence you aren't always helping, especially if whatever is happening that you're recording goes sideways. Overall, the notion of an upstander,witness, and bystander is a tough subject depending on what type of thing they were seeing, but in most cases I think it is important to act with the intention of helping. This could be by intervening or getting more help or looking the other way in cases where it seems like the person isn't doing harm.

Hi arcoiris18,

I think that your point about it being hard for witnesses to fully understand what to do in a situation is a good one. I don’t think that it is realistic to believe that everyone can jump in without a split second to think, (an exception being David Cash), because there may be a danger for the witness in doing so. I think that in some cases it’s okay to have to think things through. Depending on the severity of the situation, I think that sometimes your own thoughts of safety override the moral compass on which you act. In David Cash’s situation, I simply believe that he just lacked a moral compass. In other situations, if you truly fear for your safety or your loved one’s safety, I think it’s okay to not do something in that moment and look away as long as you find some small way to help in the near future. Even so, I do think its important for people to override their concern for themselves and help others.

Originally posted by lil breezy on September 21, 2022 09:49

It is very hard for me to understand why Cash did what he did, or really didn't do what he was supposed to. I can see that it was a very terrifying situation, and I am sure Cash felt a little bit of fear, even if Jeremy was his best friend and had "potential." But we also need to think about how terrified 7-year old Sherrice was. She most likely didn't understand why her new friend was hurting her. She probably didn't even know what rape or murder was, because she was 7. Cash was 18. He knew what he was seeing, and even though he probably didn't expect Jeremy to murder Sherrice, but he at least knew she was being restrained and raped, and that should be more than enough to warrant someone to step in. The fact is, even when Cash found out that she was dead, he did not do anything about it. I would look at the situation a bit differently if Cash were a young boy, or much weaker. However, he was grown and able-bodied, he could have done something. When I read the 36 bus story, I was surprised that nobody did anything. The odds of the young boy being saved were even bigger than Sherrice's. There were 6 other people on that bus, not including the bus driver. They watched as an older man beat him senseless. Nothing was done about it, and the boy was never found. One witness claims he had gotten up, but noticed nobody else was, so quickly sat down. This reveals a lot about how people depend on other a lot of the time to make decisions. Since nobody else was getting involved, he decided not to. In sixie year, a lady fell on the tracks just 30 seconds before the train came. Thankfully we all screamed and signaled the driver to stop, but I understand a lot of us were able to help the woman because everyone else was screaming. The problem is, if nobody is the first to do it, it will never get done. I also feel like that was a minor situation compared to the other stories, and so I believe people are most likely to help when they have little chance of getting harmed. In "The Samaritan's Dilemma," the author explains that people jumped up to help a person who fell on the ground, but yet there are still shootings and stabbings across the globe.

I feel that at the very least, a person who witnesses another wrong should be obligated to report that wrong. There were many ways Cash could have saved Sherrice, one of them being to report to the workers at the casino, this way it would be multiple people, who have authority, against one. I feel like situations that are hurting someone should be top priority in terms of wrong. I feel like if you see someone stealing an earring from a big company, like we talked about in class, it shouldn't really be considered too much of a threat. These situations are diffcult to analyze because there are so many different factors, which is why it is so difficult to think of what rules should be enforced. Obviously it is unfair to ask someone to possibly risk their life at the site of a bad situation. I do think that in violent situations, people should at least speak up, because they most likely wouldn't be able to intervene.

Hi lil breezy,

I’d like to start off by saying that I really agree with your post. I would also feel differently towards Cash if he was a young boy. There is an important difference to denote between child and adult witnesses. Adult witnesses have a bigger responsibility to help someone in need. Children’s brains are far from fully developed and have more to fear when it comes to being in danger.

I also thought that your comment on how you thought that if no one is the first to do something, nothing will get done. There has to be that one person willing to go against the crowd because of how conditioned we are to conform to what everyone else is doing. That was especially apparent on the bus when one of the witnesses sat back down after beginning to step in. It is so important for people to be willing to be the outlier, the person who helps. Without those people in the world, I think that the world would be a much more dangerous place.

Last thing - that train situation that happened to you sixie year is crazy. I’m glad you guys could help her.

Its easy for us to say Cash should have helped, but there is no legal obligation for him to do so as horrible as that is. One thing that is in common with every one of these articles is the fact that bystanders were allowed to sit back and watch as something horrible was taking place. In one case, the guy on the 36 bus was about to help but saw his fellow peers turning away in fear, so he sat back down with no support. This is a moral question as opposed to a legal one because I don't think there is a way to enforce a law where you're not allowed to be a bystander due to the differences in physical capabilities between every person. I do think there should be some form of obligation that you should try to at least get help in any form (911, other bystanders, etc.). All there seems to be able to do is to just see how these people react and in doing so, apply that to our lives in hopes that we can all become upstanders.

Originally posted by Juicy Burger on September 17, 2022 21:58

• What do you think should have governed Cash’s actions? What obligations does a person who witnesses another wrong have? Are there different rules depending on the nature of the “wrong”?

• Can you identify what “rules”—legal or otherwise—ought to govern the decision to act or merely to witness. Do we have an obligation to act—sometimes, rarely, occasionally, always? Explain.
• Choose at least 2 of the readings listed above (all are uploaded to Google classroom and attached to the post), read them and integrate what you learn from them into your response. Be certain to cite the authors or titles as you reference them so we all recognize the references.

Cash needed to truly understand the consequence and direct impact Jeremy had human life. In my viewpoint, I think it is easy for people living in the future to criticize the past. While, I absolutely think that what Cash did was above any evil, there is a need to dissect the psychological reasons behind what he did.

First, I think that humans like to ignore things that don't affect them. Cash says "I do not know starving children in Panama" and I think this reveals a huge disconnect between society and Cash. This disconnect can ultimately break the human qualities that make us care about others.

Second, I think it is easy to do nothing. If we aren't forced to do something to survive, it's easiest to do nothing. Cash expends little energy and avoids creating turmoil by not turning his friend in. The article from WBUR talks about the bystander effect and I think this is really important to understand humans today. Harris describes it as "when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.” Although, Cash had no other bystander and knew that what Strohmeyer did was wrong, I think a version of the bystander effect still exists. This version does not justify inaction because others can solve it or we can document it, rather I believe it simply means people have a natural tendency to do nothing.

Legally, Cash did nothing wrong, and I believe that unfortunately, he deserved to go free. However, since these laws have changed there is also a new legal obligation to do something. When we look at an ethical framework, we should be preventing injustice as often as we can. But given humans don't want to expend a large cost as the article from Rand and Yoeli point out, I think there should be an obligation to help people if you don't risk your life in any grave way. I think enacting rules that force people to sacrifice themselves for others is unfair and is a bit too controlling. I also agree with another sentiment from Rand and Yoeli which is that good actions compound over time. So yes, some times disaster strikes and we will see a hero figure appear but I also believe little good action compounded over time can help humanity avert dozens of future crises.

Ultimately, even though Cash's actions are beyond okay, I think modern psychology and analysis can help us understand his outlook as well as past atrocities. Additionally, I'll add that Cash, if had viewed the situation from another perspective, would have likely agreed with popular sentiment. But I think the further he choose to defend himself, the more he became engrained within a defensive and hostile state.

This makes me think of the US justice system and how it allows for people like Cash to just sit back and watch as horrible things happen. I also find it interesting that you mention he seems to sink deeper into this state where he has to defend himself as the public sentiment against him starts to rise, as if he looses himself more and more.