posts 16 - 30 of 45
Avatar
guardianangel
Posts: 15

Moral Compass: It’s Different for Everyone

David is indeed the scum of the earth for not stepping in to save Sherrice Iverson. What he had to say to the press was also disgusting.


“It’s a very tragic event, okay? But the simple fact remains: I do not know this little girl. I do not know starving children in Panama. I do not know people that die of disease in Egypt. The only person I knew in this event was Jeremy Strohmeyer, and I know as his best friend that he had potential…I’m not going to lose sleep over somebody else’s problem.”


He didn’t have to KNOW Sherrice to stop Jeremy. People help strangers all the time. Not only do they help strangers, but everyone, EVERYONE, helps young children, ESPECIALLY when they are in danger. It is absolutely despicable. Not only that, he compared her to other children in tragic situations AS IF THEY WERE IN REACH (the nerve of this guy). As a species, in both a biological and moral standpoint, children are supposed to be protected at ALL COSTS.


Just like the Bus ride on the 36, the passengers clearly saw the boy come onto the bus and noticed that the man was sitting uncomfortably close to him. Then, out of nowhere, he starts beating on him and nobody does anything. Auclair even states that he thought it was the boy’s father or somebody related to him. Naturally, on public transit, we turn a blind eye to parental discipline because it is deemed “none of our business”. When is a child’s well being, “our business”?


As to whether or not it is obligatory to respond, I agree with Althea and sea salt that saving a person is a human instinct not a choice to be made (“The Trick to Acting Heroically”). The desire to protect is a natural trait, not a learned trait because it depends on how we see people’s worth and see that all lives are worth protecting, not just our own. Just like the man in “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” who goes to rescue the victims in the burning house while the bystanders record. In his eyes, he saw danger but in the public’s eyes were dollar signs and recognition.


GhostChicago makes an excellent point that imagining a personal relationship to motivate those to stand up. But why do we need “motivation” to help people? Why can’t we, as good natured people, just step in because we care for the well being of others?


Avatar
pannafugo
Posts: 17

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

Everyone likes the idea of a “good Samaritan”, a person who steps in when someone else needs help, whether it be small, such as helping a person who is lost find where they are going, or bigger, like saving someone from potentially being murdered.


Everyone wants to be a good Samaritan, at least at the surface level. Stories such as that of a few Americans and a British man apprehending a gunman in France (The Trick to Acting Heroically) inspire many, who can imagine themselves doing something similar if such an occasion arose.


Sadly, these heroic actions do not always happen. Often times, when people see atrocious acts being committed, they are too scared to speak up. Other times, they assume that its a personal matter, such as the young boy being beaten on the 36 bus-- the other passengers, while they were horrified by the scene, thought that perhaps it was an issue between the boy and his presumed father (Nightmare on the 36 Bus). They did not want to put themselves in harms way.


Does that make their silence any better? Is that a valid reason not to speak up?


In the case of David Cash, I do not believe so. When he saw Jeremy Strohmeyer with Sherrice Iverson, he could tell that things were going south. However, he didn’t actively try to stop Strohmeyer-- it wasn’t his problem, he didn’t know that girl. He also remarked that he wanted to get out of the situation as quickly as possible.


The last sentiment is one that is common among bystander stories. However, the first few about not knowing the young girl, and subsequently not caring about the murder or turning his friend in because it “wasn’t his problem”, is not. It is honestly terrifying that someone could have this thought pattern and think there is nothing wrong with it.


Yes, Cash was under no legal obligation to stop Strohmeyer. But as a human being, Cash should have had the moral strength and the basic sense of what is right and wrong to know that what his friend was doing was reprehensible. He had all the power to stop the senseless rape and murder of a young, innocent girl. At the very, very least, he should have reported Strohmeyer to the police when he confessed to him.


Cash’s mindset regarding intervention and acting in situations where someone needs help is extremely dangerous. For him, if he doesn’t know the person suffering, he doesn’t see a reason to care. This, to me, shows a lack of basic empathy for fellow human beings. It shouldn’t matter if you don’t know the person in pain-- your instincts should automatically push you to at least want to help, if not actively do so.


Cash’s mindset regarding intervention reminded me of the poem written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist”. This is the exact kind of thinking that has led to multiple genocides around the world.


As stated in “The Bystander Effect in the Age of Cellphones,” bystanding is a result of the presence of other people which causes one to not take action-- in the article, a crowd gathers to watch and take pictures of a fire, rather than call 911 or check if there was anyone stuck in the building. I believe that these people had the obligation to get help, as everyone should when lives are at risk.


I believe RedStudent makes a good point when they said that if your mother or sister or daughter was in a situation like Sherrice’s, you’d want someone to step in. It’s never easy, but it is the right thing to do.

Avatar
pannafugo
Posts: 17

Originally posted by Althea on September 09, 2019 14:56

David Cash stated that he did not know Sherrice Iverson similarly to how he did "... not know starving children in Panama…" and "...people dying of disease in Egypt". Hence, shouldn't he have thought about his friend? They claimed to be bestfriends and so shouldn't they have looked after each other? Stopped each other from ruining their own futures? If he didn't want to do it for Sherrice then he should have done it for his best friend. Unlike, Auclair in Brian McGrogy's article, who did not know what exactly was the relation between the drunk man and the little boy, David knew the situation between Jeremy and Sherrice perfectly to intervene. Furthermore, on the matter that David did not know her as he did "...not know starving children in Panama…"and "...people that die of disease in Egypt", I think differently. Once, he saw Sherrice, once he got involved and saw what was happening to her, he came to know her. He might not have known her in such a personal level as he knew Jeremy Strohmeyer, but he came to know her as a victim. He should have done something as any person who saw someone else, despite the relation to that person, do to stop them from murdering and/ or harming anyone.

As people, we all have the responsibility to look after one another, always, no exceptions. Our decisions to help should be instinctual and not pondered on what we have to earn or loose, just as Erez Yoeli and David Rand expressed in their article. However, I understand that there are different situations in which you can't just step forward and stop the attacker because you are scared for your own life. However, you should at least try to do the best you can to delay the impending doom, for lack of better words, or distract them so there's enough time for those who are actually equipped to help, get there. We mustn't think of strangers in need of help, as just strangers. They are daughters, sons, brothers, sisters,friends, lovers, and so much more, expanding on what the medical technician expressed in Deborah Stones' article. The victims deserve better and we all can help give it to them.

I agree with you-- Cash says he did not intervene because he didn't know Sherrice, but he did know Jeremy. They were best friends. Wouldn't this warrant him to act? It's understandable when you see a difficult situation occurring that it is hard to step in because you don't know the relation between those involved or who they are at all. But for Cash, he knew exactly what was going on, meaning he had every reason to stop what was going to happen.

Avatar
DuckBoots
Posts: 25

Giving a lifejacket while safe on the boat

David Cash’s failure to come to the aid of Sherrise is the lowest form of cowardice I have yet to hear of. His excuse that, “I do not know this little girl” does not change the fact that she was a little girl. Somebody’s child and sister, who his friend was killing in the next stall. It is against human nature to not help a child in distress, especially if you are in no immediate danger. I think that the situation on the 36 bus was similar in the way that it was a child, but different in the way that anyone who intervened could have been hurt. The attacker was “burly, with an unsteady way about him that suggested he had been drinking”( Mcgroy, Nightmare on the 36 bus). It is still inexcusable that nobody stepped in to save this boy, but more understandable that self preservation took the upper hand. If Cash were not governed by moral justice he could have at least, as Althea brought up, thought of his friend's future as a criminal. His motive seemed to be to avoid a tricky situation and not to save anyone, including himself since he was in no danger.An individual who witnesses a wrong doesn't need to step in if they feel like the situation is dangerous for them. When I was learning first aid, I was taught never to enter a situation that was actively dangerous since two hurt people doesn’t help anyone. An example of this would be an individual lying in water with active wires around. However, in this situation and every situation, it is imperative and the responsibility of the bystander that if you personally cannot be of assistance you get somebody who can. David Cash could have gone to security, an employee, or his FATHER for help. I mean… four year olds call 911 all the time why can’t a grown nuclear science major? I think that if you witness a robbery you should call for help, but nobody is truly getting hurt so the need is not as strong. However, in a violent life threatening situations such as bus 36, the fire on Child street, or a young child being assaulted it is NECESSARY to at least try to get help… not to ride rollercoasters with a murderer. In Ms. Stone’s article The Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor, she describes a scene where, “two workers saw a woman running toward them, bloody and shrieking for help, pursued by an attacker. They tackled the man, knocked him to the ground, and held him until the police came”. These men acted immediately to protect a complete stranger, which I believe you are bound to at least try to do. If you are in a position where you can help someone in immediate danger without harming yourself you should. If one person becomes an upstander… it can tip the scales in favor of the victim and their life may be saved. If you do nothing you only said the attacker.
Avatar
DuckBoots
Posts: 25

Originally posted by guardianangel on September 10, 2019 17:54

David is indeed the scum of the earth for not stepping in to save Sherrice Iverson. What he had to say to the press was also disgusting.


“It’s a very tragic event, okay? But the simple fact remains: I do not know this little girl. I do not know starving children in Panama. I do not know people that die of disease in Egypt. The only person I knew in this event was Jeremy Strohmeyer, and I know as his best friend that he had potential…I’m not going to lose sleep over somebody else’s problem.”


He didn’t have to KNOW Sherrice to stop Jeremy. People help strangers all the time. Not only do they help strangers, but everyone, EVERYONE, helps young children, ESPECIALLY when they are in danger. It is absolutely despicable. Not only that, he compared her to other children in tragic situations AS IF THEY WERE IN REACH (the nerve of this guy). As a species, in both a biological and moral standpoint, children are supposed to be protected at ALL COSTS.


Just like the Bus ride on the 36, the passengers clearly saw the boy come onto the bus and noticed that the man was sitting uncomfortably close to him. Then, out of nowhere, he starts beating on him and nobody does anything. Auclair even states that he thought it was the boy’s father or somebody related to him. Naturally, on public transit, we turn a blind eye to parental discipline because it is deemed “none of our business”. When is a child’s well being, “our business”?


As to whether or not it is obligatory to respond, I agree with Althea and sea salt that saving a person is a human instinct not a choice to be made (“The Trick to Acting Heroically”). The desire to protect is a natural trait, not a learned trait because it depends on how we see people’s worth and see that all lives are worth protecting, not just our own. Just like the man in “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” who goes to rescue the victims in the burning house while the bystanders record. In his eyes, he saw danger but in the public’s eyes were dollar signs and recognition.


GhostChicago makes an excellent point that imagining a personal relationship to motivate those to stand up. But why do we need “motivation” to help people? Why can’t we, as good natured people, just step in because we care for the well being of others?


I agree with Guardianangel in their opinion that humans have a moral obligation to help each other, but the idea of intervening gets messy when it comes to parenting. I believe that each parent is in the right to raise their children how they feel is best, unless it is causing physical or mental harm to a child. However, I do not know how we could intervene in situations where we suspect abuse as opposed to witnessing in. I think that in the case of bus 36, the other passengers and driver absolutely needed to intervene, but on our daily train rides... what can we do? As children ourselves how can we step in when the parent will say the exact phrase "it's none of your business". To a certain extent they may have a point. I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as always stepping up, but I really wish it were. I do think when it comes to children especially we should not fight the instinct to help them, but sometimes it is hard to stay safe while doing so.

Avatar
tablechair
Posts: 19

Perspective

As human beings, we all have a moral obligation to act during situations we know are wrong or could potentially lead to violent outcomes. That includes David Cash on that fateful night when he allowed his friend to assault and kill a seven year old girl in the public restroom of a casino.

What’s interesting is his feeling of detachment from the whole situation. Comparing it to Judy Harris’s “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age”, it’s almost as if people are too enveloped in their own worlds or their own good to even give others’ safety a second thought. Branching off of Althea’s point, David could’ve been more focused on his own safety than that of a little girl. However, the risks could’ve only been so high considering the fact that there were no weapons involved, and he and Jeremy were the same age and around the same size. It almost felt like he simply didn’t care about what his friend was doing.

Because he was friends with Jeremy, he might have found it more difficult to object at the risk of harming their friendship. We truly don’t know David’s personal life. Maybe he valued Jeremy too much as a friend to let him go. Or maybe he was just too shocked by this “out of character” behavior from Jeremy that he froze up. In any case, what he did was clearly wrong and, quite frankly, scary.

This takes a sharp contrast from Erez Yoeli and David Rand’s article, “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, which states that it’s human nature to help others on instinct. Why didn’t David experience this? Not only did he not attempt to verbally or physically stop Jeremy, he also failed to make any call for help or report him.

Did he, too, feel he would be “out of place” just as Daniel Auclair did on the 36 bus? He explained that he did not “not know this little girl,” and therefore he didn’t “want to lose sleep over someone else’s problem.” However, going off of ghostchicago’s point, it should not matter whether or not we know the person. We all should be willing, as fellow human beings, to help out others in times of distress, no matter their connection to us.

Something to think about is how it seems most of us assure ourselves that we would never do such a thing. But can we honestly say for sure that we’d all do the right thing if the situation came upon us. I’m sure many have witnessed even some type wrongdoing, whether it be big or small, and didn’t know how to act. I am in no way saying that what David did is justified, as it isn’t, but I definitely think it’s something to consider.

By law, any witness of a crime should be obligated to at least report it, otherwise they should be considered an accomplice, as they are proving to be an obstruction of justice. Any wrong that is clearly along the lines of an illegal action should be taken seriously and reported immediately. Even a “wrong” that is legal (e.g., talking behind someone’s back) should still be considered harmful, and those who witness it should still show some form of action. We all have an obligation to act. Whether that is by literally involving ourselves in the situation, or calling upon the help of others and/or professionals. We can’t expect someone else to do it for us.


Avatar
DuckBoots
Posts: 25

Originally posted by secretname7 on September 09, 2019 17:34

Growing up in a technological age, we can be inclined to take a step back from certain situations, especially those who are on social media. According to Judy Harris, a bunch of people photographed a fire instead of trying to help- see if anyone was in danger, check on victims, etc. This is done to maintain social media clout and have “cool” posts. Unfortunately, many have fallen victim to this; photographing or videoing everything instead of living in the moment. This translates to everyday behavior as Harris was saying, because with her example, people forgot to sympathize and act first and their instinction was to lean back and get content for instagram or snapchat. From David Cash who is in the tech savvy age group, probably also fell victim to this. Even though Cash did not film the rape or murder of Sherrice Iverson, his default was to step back, much like those who were videoing the fire that Harris was describing. As said in The Trick to Acting Heroically by Erez Yoeli and David Rand, the three American who risked their lives to a gunman to save another man’s life said “It wasn’t really a conscious decision.” Helping the victim to those 3 men was a gut instinct and their own personal auto pilots. Cash’s decision to leave when Sherrice was in trouble could have not been a “conscious” one. His gut instinct could have been to leave, get himself out of trouble, instead of helping Sherrice. Ultimately, Cash should have let ideas of sympathy govern his actions. If Cash was Sherrice, he probably would have wanted somebody to help him. If one witnesses a wrong, they should feel an obligation to report it at the very least. It doesn’t matter how big or how small, if you don’t want to see yourself in the same situation than you should fight the perpetrator. Ethically, if you let a murder or rape happen right in front of you, and did nothing then you are just as guilty as the one who did the action because you let it happen. According to The Samaritan’s Dilemma by Deborah Stone, good samaritans always feel their behavior is the “norm” and should not be praised for it. Based off of this, we always have an obligation to act and not be a bystander.

I agree with secretname7 that Cash's actions should have governed by human emotions like sympathy and that he would expect the same from his fellow man. However, I cannot believe that Cash's "gut instinct" could have been to walk away from the bathroom. If his first instinct was to ignore... he would have never walked into that bathroom. Also, as multiple users have stated, human nature would have prompted him to help a child in distress. He did apparently "try" to intervene at first, but he fought the urge to do anything to walk out of that bathroom. This males his lack of action even more despicable. He chose loyalty to his best friend over the dominant urge to do the right thing. He is truly a monster.

Avatar
clown emoji
Posts: 31

Do at Least... Something!

A trivial component to analyzing this case comes down to ethical versus legal beliefs and ideas. As it varies by each person’s opinion, I have noticed many of us struggling with “right vs. wrong”, which seems totally diluted in terms of legal versus moral. The only reason why I would imagine Cash did what he did, was because of pressure to preserve his friendship with Strohmeyer, although that reasoning just isn’t good enough for me.


I believe that if you witness a wrong you must do something to a certain degree, and I don’t think there are any exclusions if what is occurring is considered a ‘wrong’. I also feel that this varies once you factor in circumstances. In cases of harm, physically or mentally, you must always do something. I think all stable-minded humans can tell when a situation is serious enough to cause serious physical and mental harm, and I think a good person must do something. This is basically summed up in the introduction of the reasoning why two men acted heroically in “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, stating that taking action isn’t necessarily thought about, yet a gut instinct. This need to act is highly increased as a threat of death looms into the situation. If someone does absolutely nothing, as Cash did so, when serious danger and death were obvious threats, they must be seriously flawed in their moral compass.


I believe the right thing to do is to act and we are all obligated to it although we may act in our own degrees. In the article, “The Bystander Effect in The Cellphone Age”, it describes people as standing around a JP fire filming it, while a man was actually running into the nearby houses alerting everyone to evacuate. The two types of ‘help’ vary, but I still believe both are actually doing something at least. The people filing it were spreading word on the fire while the man was saving lives.


In this case, unfortunately, the only ‘action’ Cash admitting to taking was ‘body language’ and that he gave his friend ‘the look’. As spoken about in class, how is this action even effective when his entire body was covered by the stall and Jeremy couldn’t even see his face? As the article, “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”, explains on page 130, altruism is embedded in the human psyche. I agree with this, and because of the fact it’s a literal part of us, I believe we are all responsible to do something with that drop in our stomach or voice in our heads. Due to this, Cash should have done something more, no matter the fact that Strohemeyer was his best friend.



Avatar
clown emoji
Posts: 31

Originally posted by DuckBoots on September 10, 2019 18:13

David Cash’s failure to come to the aid of Sherrise is the lowest form of cowardice I have yet to hear of. His excuse that, “I do not know this little girl” does not change the fact that she was a little girl. Somebody’s child and sister, who his friend was killing in the next stall. It is against human nature to not help a child in distress, especially if you are in no immediate danger. I think that the situation on the 36 bus was similar in the way that it was a child, but different in the way that anyone who intervened could have been hurt. The attacker was “burly, with an unsteady way about him that suggested he had been drinking”( Mcgroy, Nightmare on the 36 bus). It is still inexcusable that nobody stepped in to save this boy, but more understandable that self preservation took the upper hand. If Cash were not governed by moral justice he could have at least, as Althea brought up, thought of his friend's future as a criminal. His motive seemed to be to avoid a tricky situation and not to save anyone, including himself since he was in no danger.An individual who witnesses a wrong doesn't need to step in if they feel like the situation is dangerous for them. When I was learning first aid, I was taught never to enter a situation that was actively dangerous since two hurt people doesn’t help anyone. An example of this would be an individual lying in water with active wires around. However, in this situation and every situation, it is imperative and the responsibility of the bystander that if you personally cannot be of assistance you get somebody who can. David Cash could have gone to security, an employee, or his FATHER for help. I mean… four year olds call 911 all the time why can’t a grown nuclear science major? I think that if you witness a robbery you should call for help, but nobody is truly getting hurt so the need is not as strong. However, in a violent life threatening situations such as bus 36, the fire on Child street, or a young child being assaulted it is NECESSARY to at least try to get help… not to ride rollercoasters with a murderer. In Ms. Stone’s article The Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor, she describes a scene where, “two workers saw a woman running toward them, bloody and shrieking for help, pursued by an attacker. They tackled the man, knocked him to the ground, and held him until the police came”. These men acted immediately to protect a complete stranger, which I believe you are bound to at least try to do. If you are in a position where you can help someone in immediate danger without harming yourself you should. If one person becomes an upstander… it can tip the scales in favor of the victim and their life may be saved. If you do nothing you only said the attacker.

I agree with the fact that Cash's excuse for not stepping in and doing something was that he "did not know the girl" is ridiculous and unacceptable. This seems like him inherently putting up a wall to hide the ugliness of how he actually felt about the situation. Will we ever know why he didn't actually take action? No, but I agree with DuckBoots that his friendship with Jeremy being the only reason why he didn't do anything. I also applaud DuckBoots's point that if he actually cared for his friend and his friend's reputation, wouldn't he have cared that his friend could possibly go to prison!?

Avatar
dummkopf
Posts: 21

America's vital instinct

David Cash is an 18 year old freshman at the University of California Berkeley. He witnesses his best friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer, suppressing 7 year old Sherrice Iverson in a woman’s bathroom in a casino, but decides to walk away without even saying a word to his friend. After Strohmeyer walks out of the bathroom 22 minutes later, he immediately confesses to raping and murdering Iverson. Cash does not call the police and does not report his friend, even though he is a partial witness to the crime. He instead acts like nothing happened, until the police come knocking on Strohmeyer’s door a few days later.

I think Cash never developed the so called hero instincts that are described in the article “The Trick to Acting Heroically” from the New York Times. Cash does not have that heart before mind instinct that would make him help Iverson before even thinking about it. He lacks the others before self concept, and seem to have no empathy for the young girl’s situation. In his interview with the news, he wears the face of a victim and answers the questions quickly, as though he thinks they are wasting his time. If he truly had any hero instincts at all, he would have at least spoken to his troubled friend as he was strangling Iverson. The thing that governs Cash’s actions in that bathroom in Las Vegas is his fear of consequences. He simply seems to be an apathetic person with no care in the world other than his own success. Why else would he only start to defend his situation after students at his university began to rally against him? Why else would he act so emotionless about the jailing of his beloved friend that he would even keep the secret of murder for?

I feel like America is known as the land of overly interested people. We strike up conversations with strangers almost anywhere and we love gossip, which almost always meddles in someone else’s business. I think this also includes helping people. Most Americans feel as though they need to protect their own people, so if they see someone having a hard time, they will speak up and/or act. I actually watched a YouTube video recently, where a foreigner complained about our need to help other people, instead of ignoring the situation like they would have done. I think this helping instinct is most active in crowded areas, and least active at night or in less crowded places, where people feel the need to keep to themselves. An example of people feeling the need to keep to themselves would be in the Boston Globe article “Nightmare on the 36 bus”, where the passengers neglect to help the little boy being assaulted by an older man. In general, I believe that everyone, not just Americans should try to stop a scenario that is escalating badly. No matter what kind of situation it is, even if it looks like a fight between a couple, I believe outsiders should intervene. If it is a simple fight, a bystander can at least tell them to quiet down a bit or move elsewhere to fight, and if it is not, then you have just saved a person from a terrible memory.

I think there should be no rules that should govern the decision to act. The one rule would be: If you are witnessing a situation, you should act. There is no excuse for not acting, unless you are physically not able to (then you should get someone else to intervene on your behalf). If you were in need of help, and no one came to help you, how would you feel? Leaning towards selflessness will help others and yourself. To quote the book The Samaritan’s Dilemma, “it’s something I would want someone to do for my mother, my father or my brother.” You cannot always expect help if you do not give any yourself. Small actions can go a long way, and if everyone were willing to help others, you will find yourself in a world full of support because everyone would strive to aid everyone else.


Avatar
traveler
Posts: 20

do SOMEthing rather than NOthing

The part that shocked me the most from Cash’s actions was the fact that he had little to no response to anything that was happening. Sure, he patted his friend’s head and gave him a “look” and showed the body language for Strohmeyer to “cut it out” … but what about when he walked out and did not report anything that happened? It also surprised me when Strohmeyer confessed yet Cash still continued to play games after the tragic incident.

In Deborah’s Stone The Samaritan’s Dilemma, we see examples of people risking their own safety to help others’ lives. Such as the two workers who put their lives at risk when they tackled an attacker and held him down until the police came. Or when Crispin McKay saved a victim of an attack when the assailant could have still been around. According to Erez Yoeli and David Rand’s The Trick to Acting Heroically, “We found almost no examples of heroes whose first impulse was for self-preservation but who overcame that impulse with a conscious, rational decision to help.” Perhaps, these selfless heroes saw the benefit of giving a helping hand even though the lives could be in danger. In these examples, there could be a possibility that these heroes made a quick and unplanned decision to help instead of walking away.

However, going back to the case with Cash and Strohmeyer, Cash saw what was happening and, in a way, gave up trying to save Iverson. He walked out of the bathroom and let Strohmeyer continue to attack the girl. Even if one were to argue that Cash didn’t want to physically involve himself in the incident, he did not report it at all when he exited the bathroom. In my opinion, I find no excuse for anyone to walk out of a situation like this when they clearly saw what was happening. I understand if Cash may have not wanted to physically pull his friend off Iverson, but he also did not call for help which sends a message that he does not care about what happens to Iverson.

Another point brought up in The Samaritan’s Dilemma was how when there is a large crowd, people tend to not act because “Each person assumes someone else will do something … When they think they are the only person available to help someone else, they are very likely to respond.” In the article Nightmare on the 36 Bus, maybe the bus passengers were hesitant because it was not their place to get involved or they all thought someone would step up and unfortunately, no one did. But this point does not apply to Cash. Cash was the only witness in the bathroom stall but still did not feel the need to stop the incident.

If Cash thought carefully and showed some empathy he would realize that he should have helped Iverson even if he did not know her. The fact that Cash did not step up or find help shows that he is helping Strohmeyer get away with his actions.

Avatar
dummkopf
Posts: 21

Originally posted by secretname7 on September 09, 2019 17:34

Growing up in a technological age, we can be inclined to take a step back from certain situations, especially those who are on social media. According to Judy Harris, a bunch of people photographed a fire instead of trying to help- see if anyone was in danger, check on victims, etc. This is done to maintain social media clout and have “cool” posts. Unfortunately, many have fallen victim to this; photographing or videoing everything instead of living in the moment. This translates to everyday behavior as Harris was saying, because with her example, people forgot to sympathize and act first and their instinction was to lean back and get content for instagram or snapchat. From David Cash who is in the tech savvy age group, probably also fell victim to this. Even though Cash did not film the rape or murder of Sherrice Iverson, his default was to step back, much like those who were videoing the fire that Harris was describing. As said in The Trick to Acting Heroically by Erez Yoeli and David Rand, the three American who risked their lives to a gunman to save another man’s life said “It wasn’t really a conscious decision.” Helping the victim to those 3 men was a gut instinct and their own personal auto pilots. Cash’s decision to leave when Sherrice was in trouble could have not been a “conscious” one. His gut instinct could have been to leave, get himself out of trouble, instead of helping Sherrice. Ultimately, Cash should have let ideas of sympathy govern his actions. If Cash was Sherrice, he probably would have wanted somebody to help him. If one witnesses a wrong, they should feel an obligation to report it at the very least. It doesn’t matter how big or how small, if you don’t want to see yourself in the same situation than you should fight the perpetrator. Ethically, if you let a murder or rape happen right in front of you, and did nothing then you are just as guilty as the one who did the action because you let it happen. According to The Samaritan’s Dilemma by Deborah Stone, good samaritans always feel their behavior is the “norm” and should not be praised for it. Based off of this, we always have an obligation to act and not be a bystander.

I agree with your points about people in this day and age forgetting to help because they cannot live in the moment. Life may seem like a movie to some people, and terrible situations are just their 'action' scene for a second until the next one comes along. On the other hand, I disagree that it was Cash's gut instinct to run out of that bathroom without trying to help Sherrice. If he really had been scared, acting on instinct, or simply not wanting to get involved, he would have left the bathroom the moment he saw Iverson and Strohmeyer throwing wet paper towels at each other. If he were acting on gut instinct, he would not have been able to watch Strohmeyer subdue Iverson and try to signal him to leave (as in he would have left before that). I think David was curious about his friend's out of character or perhaps normal behavior and wanted to see more. When Jeremy started to go too far, David left the bathroom to go play in the casino more without a second thought. Why else would he be so calm about the situation if it hadn't been something he had seen before (or something that resembled it)?

Avatar
traveler
Posts: 20

Originally posted by clown emoji on September 10, 2019 18:59

A trivial component to analyzing this case comes down to ethical versus legal beliefs and ideas. As it varies by each person’s opinion, I have noticed many of us struggling with “right vs. wrong”, which seems totally diluted in terms of legal versus moral. The only reason why I would imagine Cash did what he did, was because of pressure to preserve his friendship with Strohmeyer, although that reasoning just isn’t good enough for me.


I believe that if you witness a wrong you must do something to a certain degree, and I don’t think there are any exclusions if what is occurring is considered a ‘wrong’. I also feel that this varies once you factor in circumstances. In cases of harm, physically or mentally, you must always do something. I think all stable-minded humans can tell when a situation is serious enough to cause serious physical and mental harm, and I think a good person must do something. This is basically summed up in the introduction of the reasoning why two men acted heroically in “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, stating that taking action isn’t necessarily thought about, yet a gut instinct. This need to act is highly increased as a threat of death looms into the situation. If someone does absolutely nothing, as Cash did so, when serious danger and death were obvious threats, they must be seriously flawed in their moral compass.

@ clown emoji, I agree with your intro about how people can either view this situation through a ethical lease or a legal one. I also find it interesting about how people different morals about the idea of right and wrong. It poses questions like: What is "right" and what is "wrong"? Who decides that? ... government? society? each individual? I also found it interesting how you talked about the "degree" of a wrong doing. There are some small things that people tend to ignore (like the examples posed in class today) and some instances that are very serious like a threat to a person's life. But how many small wrongdoings does it take for a person to be considered "bad". and following up with that if we keep being a bystander to these small issues, would we be considered as bad as the person we decided to ignore.

Avatar
dummkopf
Posts: 21

Originally posted by guardianangel on September 10, 2019 17:54

David is indeed the scum of the earth for not stepping in to save Sherrice Iverson. What he had to say to the press was also disgusting.


“It’s a very tragic event, okay? But the simple fact remains: I do not know this little girl. I do not know starving children in Panama. I do not know people that die of disease in Egypt. The only person I knew in this event was Jeremy Strohmeyer, and I know as his best friend that he had potential…I’m not going to lose sleep over somebody else’s problem.”


He didn’t have to KNOW Sherrice to stop Jeremy. People help strangers all the time. Not only do they help strangers, but everyone, EVERYONE, helps young children, ESPECIALLY when they are in danger. It is absolutely despicable. Not only that, he compared her to other children in tragic situations AS IF THEY WERE IN REACH (the nerve of this guy). As a species, in both a biological and moral standpoint, children are supposed to be protected at ALL COSTS.


Just like the Bus ride on the 36, the passengers clearly saw the boy come onto the bus and noticed that the man was sitting uncomfortably close to him. Then, out of nowhere, he starts beating on him and nobody does anything. Auclair even states that he thought it was the boy’s father or somebody related to him. Naturally, on public transit, we turn a blind eye to parental discipline because it is deemed “none of our business”. When is a child’s well being, “our business”?


As to whether or not it is obligatory to respond, I agree with Althea and sea salt that saving a person is a human instinct not a choice to be made (“The Trick to Acting Heroically”). The desire to protect is a natural trait, not a learned trait because it depends on how we see people’s worth and see that all lives are worth protecting, not just our own. Just like the man in “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” who goes to rescue the victims in the burning house while the bystanders record. In his eyes, he saw danger but in the public’s eyes were dollar signs and recognition.


GhostChicago makes an excellent point that imagining a personal relationship to motivate those to stand up. But why do we need “motivation” to help people? Why can’t we, as good natured people, just step in because we care for the well being of others?


I agree with everything you state here about David being guilty. I would like the add on to your comments about the desire to protect. I think that it can be a natural trait and a learned trait. Even if someone is not born caring or sympathetic, I think they can learn it in their youth. In the right environment and with the right roles models, most kids will grow up to be empathetic. I do not think we can choose who we want to be, but I think we can change ourselves, if we really have the will to do it.

Avatar
shorty123
Posts: 16

A Human Being

David Cash said that the reason why he did not do anything was because he simply “did not know the little girl”. Sherrice was 7 years old. She was young and physically was no match for 18 year old Jeremy. I believe that morally, he should’ve helped her by trying to pull him off or at least done anything besides doing nothing because who knows what the outcome would’ve been if he tried. On “Nightmare on Bus 36” there was a quote that stated “A young boy needed his help, needed someone’s help, needed anyone’s help and no one was able to give it.” I feel like especially because the life of a child was involved the situation has to be looked at more differently than if someone was stealing. Questions have to be asked like “okay can someone die out of this?” “what would I want if that was my child”. Yes someone can die from this, someone did and it simply could’ve been avoided if he looked at Sherrice as a 7 year old human being and not someone he “didn’t know” I’m the article called “the Bystander” it speaks about how there weren’t any fire trucks yet when they had arrived to the location of the fire. One man made it his duty to go and help out until professionals came. I feel as thought we always have an obligation to help if we see something physically going wrong and no one is doing anything to stop it. Helping a little is better than not helping a lot and it could surprise people on how brave they are so they know that the next time they see something bad happening, they are courageous enough to step up. In the article “The Samaritans Dilemma (should the government help your neighbor) I agree with the fact that it says people think “anyone would do what I did”. Just having that simple thought in your mind can lead to someone’s life being saved.
posts 16 - 30 of 45