Every day on the news, one hears about hateful acts around the world yet most of the time we will do nothing about it unless it is related to our lives in some form. Since the seminar on justice, Ive been curious whether it is morally wrong to not take actions while knowing about the immoral issues and events that occur in the world. Our ignorance and lack of assistance to strangers is significant. So, should we be held accountable for not taking action to those who need it? Various examples of basic human necessities and rights are privileges in many places around the world, including safety, education, healthcare, and shelter. As discussed in our justice seminar, the government controls our values and moral codes, that shaped by laws and rights. Many Canadians are fortunate enough to have fundamental human rights but are we responsible to take action on hateful acts around the world? Surely, cooperation and alliances are beneficial for both parties but how and what is the best response to an immoral act? This question may seem specific but when you look at all types of unethical acts in the world that have massive impacts, your answer may vary due to a widespread of perspectives.
First, it is not immoral for humans to act upon immoral actions as it is numerically and realistically impossible. Moral realism is a cognostic view which helps one see from this mathematical perspective. Thinking from a logical and statistical point of view, the number of immoral acts globally, cannot be fixed by a single human. If we are to analyze this accurately, one must find the definition of immoral acts. In general, malevolent actions committed by a human being are considered evil and immoral. Under this definition, all types of offensive and undesirable action should be considered. Although the number of malevolent actions is significant today, as discussed during our justice seminar, the truth and discovery of these actions are questionable. For example, the justice systems legitimacy and accountability are not consistently precise. Since moral realism is factual than less biased and opinionated, the accountability of facts is highly important. All things considered, it is numerically impossible for humans to fix all the immoral acts.
Additionally, it is not morally wrong to not take action knowing the unethical issues in the world due to biological reasons and human nature. From Jane Goodalls research of chimpanzees, she made a scientific discovery of how chimpanzees thrive the best in smaller groups and families. In smaller groups and communities, the animals would help each other within every situation and condition. When the scientists increased the number of chimpanzees in a colony, the focus on each other became increasingly challenging for the chimps, causing less help and care for one another. Similar to chimps, we need social interactions and have fundamental necessities to help others, however, only with the people directly related or concerned with our lives. When immoral actions occur around the world, humans find it difficult to take actions for every event as we are not always affected by it closely. The society of chimps reflects a clear image and representation of our society as they have ninety-nine percent of the same DNA as humans. Jane unveiled the specific behaviour of chimps that were not recognized before, that can be seen in our society. For example, she sighted their prosocial and antisocial behaviour within small and large communities. Smaller communities have a sense of solidarity and create stronger relationships within. This idea is similar to a traditional consequentialist who believes humans should put community and family above strangers. As humans, we display individualism but by a collective and groups, expressing the compassion and empathy to the people who surround us. Although this is true, individualists can likewise be selfish and have too much self-interest to the point where caring for anyone is non-existent. Another name for this individual is an egoist. Egoism is motivated by money, time and other incentives that result in a redundant amount of self-interest and self-importance. Contrary to an egoism, compassion fatigue is scarce in numbers. Currently, too much empathy is uncommon and is likely what immoral acts are in need of. In essence, immoral actions cannot be changed or fixed in every circumstance due to our human nature, therefore we cannot always be responsible for not taking action to immoral acts.
Some may argue that humans have the responsibility of taking action to immoral acts as we are not emotionless creatures and have the ability to fix these issues. This stands true, however, human beings have shown very little emotion in the past. An example of this is in WW2 when the Jewish community were sent to concentration camps and gas chambers in Germany due to their religion. Many years after WW2, the immoral act of racism towards the Jewish community continued, not only in Germany but other countries as well. Looking back, we can see that humans have the ability to be immoral and emotionless to others. Despite the lessons that we have learned from WW2, we continue to do immoral acts. Currently, in the middle east, the Syrian war continues to persist, killing civilians and soldiers daily. According to SNHR, Syrian Network For Human Rights, over 500,000 people have died due to the conflicts that arose from the war. Answering my question from this perspective, humans have not learned the impacts of these immoral acts and has not determined a way to stop it, therefore the answer is no as we are reserved when it comes to immoral acts.
Perhaps due to bias and assumptions, our thoughts become disoriented to believe what we want to believe. Fake news and information twisted by the media could stop society from understanding about a critical, urgent issue occurring in the world. The vale of ignorance would help bring understanding by blocking the opinions of one, resulting in in justice and action. The vale of ignorance is merely a concept to humankind but in an ideal world, it would prompt truthful then surely progress. Nevertheless, society would then come to challenge another difficult task, how could you take action to control an immoral act for the better? Which is the best way that would produce the best result?
The gap between good intentions and results are two separate things. For instance, voluntourism has good intentions yet does not always produce the wanted results. Upper and middle-class members have the ability to build schools and teach education to children without prior knowledge of how to do these tasks. It would be most beneficial to teach locals and provide resources as it would create a stable and lasting impact on the disadvantaged communities. On occasion, one can hope to help but fails as the action produces a negative result.
I conclude that it is part of humans to not take action upon each immoral action in this world, although we are in deprivation of compassionate people who are willing to make a change. Occasionally we neglect immoral acts that we commit ourselves and/or that is being done to us. (climate change, abuse, etc) Time is highly valuable since we only live once. Although we want to share our empathy with ones we love in this short period of time, we should take actions that produce favourable results for people who have experienced and/or experiencing immoral events and hardships. There is so such thing as a perfect place on earth, nor a perfect person, but we lack the amount of compassion we have for one another.