The film’s purpose and argument is vague at times. However, one of the claims that it does make
in the introduction is that “Indifference is complicity.” This essentially states that if we are
bystanders to a massive crime, we are basically committing that crime by
letting it continue. While the
documentary did a horribly vague job at explaining this argument, I will
attempt to outline it as I believe the film intended.
The argument is
that in particular situations such as Darfur, the Jewish Holocaust, or Global
Warming, staying neutral is no longer actually staying neutral. Neutrality serves the purpose of the
persecutor, and therefore is the same as persecution. This stems back to the base idea that we are
connected through a Social Contract: the idea that we owe the people in our
community certain things so that we can enjoy protection. It states that there is a moral obligation to
help those in our community.
It is arguable that Darfur is a part of our community. After all, as technology continues to expand
its influence and our sense of connection, the global community has started to
increase in importance. In olden days, take for example the Medieval Age, the people
were not expected to help native Americans all the way over in the Americas or
people in Africa. The reason is that
they did not have sufficient knowledge of these peoples. Plus, they did not directly affect each other’s
lives. Therefore, they had no
responsibility for each other. However,
nowadays, everyone has the capability to affect everyone else. This is obvious through the international
trade (oil), the influences of government, media coverage, etc. Everyone knows what goes on in different
parts of the world. Therefore, there
arises a new sense of responsibility.
Because we know, we must act on what we know. This is the moral obligation that Darfur
poses on Americans today.
Since the world is being viewed as this new global community, to
not help Darfur means to sabotage a supposedly group effort. It brings the rest of the community down due
to one’s own self-interests, symbolically and perhaps indirectly. That is what makes aiding Darfur an
obligation, because in this case of the Social Contract, “not helping” becomes
synonymous with “hurting.” If one
ignores his responsibilities as an individual within a community, he is hurting
the community, and in turn hurting the people within the community. His actions are therefore unjust and he,
immoral.
The counter-argument against
this, however, can also be quite convincing.
It is also much easier to synthesize.
Whereas the Social Contract applies large, broad laws, to an
increasingly complicated society, the counter-argument simply dismisses the
Social Contract. The entire idea of
morality, when viewed honestly, can sometimes be questionable.
The Social Contract implies that people are naturally individual and
they do not work together. Therefore, by
agreeing to work together, the idea of morality means much more and is
magnified. However, there is virtually
no way to say what people are naturally like.
We all make theories about humans being inherently good or inherently
bad but the fact of the matter is these are merely assumptions. In truth, this is not a simple question to
answer at all.
With this said, the counter-argument would be that since the
base state of human existence is impossible to know, we cannot infer that
morality is even a valid concept. Who
says we owe anyone anything? Who says that
offering protection for one another is such a big favor? Who says that justice is such a number one
priority? Without morality or justice,
there is little link between America and Darfur. And therefore, there is no obligation to stop
the genocide.
NOW, this leads
me to my personal belief. Personally, I
sometimes have little faith in morality.
Therefore, the first argument is somewhat of a stretch for me, despite
its vastly good intentions. BUT, I do
not fully contend with the counter-argument either (being that I have gone out
of my way to help Darfur since the 8th grade). While there may be some uncertainty in
morality, one concept that cannot be died is practicality. I believe helping Darfur, for me, is a
practical decision, meaning that it simplifies my life and avoids possible bad
karma. The idea is that if I were to
hurt someone in my school, that person would probably find some way to hurt me
back. Even if I get away with hurting
him, I forever attain this reputation of being mean, causing the people around
me to avoid me. Either way, something bad happens in return. That is a simple
example. In the same way, I believe I
should not hurt Darfur. It is a
practical decision, because I do not see the difference between hurting a
person in America and a person in Darfur.
The only thing that separates me from Darfur is distance. To me, distance does not erase the practical
laws of nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment