Absolutely. Indifference makes you an accomplice. In the same way we are accomplices of the decay of our climate, world hunger, slaughter of millions of animals, exploitation of women as prostitutes and so forth. As long as we know what happens but we dont change anything, were guilty as hell. But cynicism ate all our idealism, and the more cynic we get, the less change will come forth.
The thing is, there is no punishment whatsoever for our indifference, so most of us will take the easy way out. Also: I think mankind is a master of getting rid of feelings of guilt. A single man can say: what could i have done? But what if this man, set ablaze with idealism, managed to mobilize thousands in widerstand?

Joep

Do you really feel guilty about world hunger etc.?
And what is wrong with getting rid about feelings of guilt?

PS

Correction: 'getting rid of'

David

Yes. Not all the time ofcourse. But once or twice a week. And i don't feel guilty for it being the way it is, but for not doing anything about it. And what stops me from doing anything about it? Do i have excuses? Only bad ones...

Whenever I see a beggar, most of the time I react indifferent and give nothing, sometimes I feel compassion and I give some change. But from time to time I read about people beating up the poor. Guilt is a distant companion and yet I do not want to get rid of him.

Sometimes it feels great to engage in a bigger cause. A few years I helped an illegal immigrant, I made sure she had work, I wrote letters for her to the goverment, I searched a school for her son and I must say I found it a very satisfying and enriching encounter.

Joep

So do you consider yourself a moralist filled with weakness?

David

Yes.

Joep

I suggest that you drop your moralism, just feel weak. And don't feel guilty about your weakness.

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that i do accept one thing mtv told me ,years ago, :"if you're not part of the sollution, you're part of the problem".
And though i agree with the right to indifference, i feel it closely related to (a right to) ignorance. Bliss, if you can hold on, to the lack of feeling or knowledge. But if you have a choice?

David

Back the the question Arnon posed: your solution makes me an accomplice. And dropping moralism? Have you done that? Do you consider yourself a nihilist?

Joep

The moralist camp always call discretion 'nihilism'. That's not surprising, the moralist is full of himself.

David

What do you suggest than? How would you define the 'discretion' you are talking about? Youre not free of moralism, no sane individual is. Do you advocate exploitation and genocide? If not, you have a moral attitude too.

Joep

I don't have to tell you, moralists know on forehand what's right and what's wrong.

David

and back to the discussion again: i think dropping moralism equals indifference, and indifference equals guilt. I made my position in this discussion clear, but i stll dont know what yours is.

Joep

And what are you going to do about it?

David

Ehmm..... ask you about your position?

Courage and the ordinary man

To have courage is to be a hero, ultimately. But what is a hero? It is not superman, a hero is not flying through the sky, but it is more like Clark Kent, the clumsy reporter affraid to be recognized for what he really is. Lacan said that the transition of an ordinary man into a hero is ‘plus mystérieuse qu‘on ne le croit´. I have a high opinion of Susan Neiman and did not read her article, but judging on the title of her article she suffers from the typical philosophical desire towards too much clarity. No doubt the ordinary man is alienated in his service of goods that modern society is imposing on him. Just to mention: the subprime mortgage crises. But it is neither a question of the clarity of the ideals of a Susan Neiman, to mistrut in principle, nor to mock the morality of the ordinary man, always too easy, but to realise that it is the ordinary man who is tracing the path of the hero. Of course between the two something happens. So, what is interesting, what it is all about speaking about courage, is this mysterious thing that, suddenly, makes the ordinary man into a hero. Our right of indifference is the starting point, but, obviously, it is not the end.
And, as I might add on this Super Tuesday, it is also the trick of political charisma: ‘I am just like you, I am an ordinary man. But let me serve and protect you. Let me be your hero.´

Joep

Ok, if you insist.
Maybe trusting or hoping that in a moment of truth that I do the right thing.
What that right thing is I really don't know.
All I know is that the human lifeform is a failure.

David

True.

Johan Schokker

Excuse me but did I miss something, who is Susan Neiman? What do you know about her?

@Joep & David
We could also state that the human life form is a giant success, too successful eventually.

JT

Yes, depending on your viewpoint. I've read too much Schopenhauer lately i guess.

@Joep
No worry, I have read a lot of John Gray lately (not the one from Venus&Mars!)

JT

I still have to read him, is 'Black mass' a good start?

Arnon

Suzan Neiman is an american philosopher from Yale , she wrote : Evil in Modern Thought.

Johan Schokker

Thanks.
I’m not sure what your point is about heroism. Sophie Scholl might be a hero to us – there’s something unpleasant about the word “hero” don’t you think? – but it is doubtful if she thought about herself as a hero.
The question how it can be explained that ordinary men and women become heroes is strange as well.
If ordinary men can become killers, ordinary men can become heroes.
You seem not to understand how people can risk their own life -- am I right?

@Joep
Black Mass, gives a very complete insight in his thoughts. For me it is a gold mine, although I did not finish the book yet. I am still reading.

Arnon

I see that my comment was somewhat obscure. I am well aware that the notion of the hero is embarrassing and has all kind of associations that in general would be wise to avoid.
However, I could not think of another word to characterize the resistance of Sophie Scholl and her group. Honor maybe, as you suggested.
Of course, in the end everything can be reduced and explained by a set of contingent historical factors. And, as the result of her resistance was null, it is only one step to argue: in the end, Sophie Scholl, you really should have known better.
But if Sophie Scholl acted in the way she did, it was simply because she felt she had no other choice.
Susan Neiman in her article writes that in commemorating the drama of the Nazi regime ΄the heros should return to center stage΄. An ambivalent proposal, of course, and if in my comment I pointed out that Clark Kent is the true identity of the son of Krypton, I just wanted to make clear that I did not think that Sophie Scholl considered herself a hero, on the contrary, that it happened in spite of herself.
To sacrifice your life does not seem to me such a mysterious thing. The history of the Nazi regime makes it sufficiently clear that under the right conditions to sacrifice your life is not so prodigious, but almost common.
If it is necessary to coin the term hero anew, which is not a sure thing of course, I would argue that being a hero is a position that is taken only momentarily and although the sacrifice of a life can be the result, it is surely not its intention. With ordinary men, I meant all of us, Everyman, that is not the best of us, the most privileged et cetera, but that it is unpredictable in principle who in the end has the courage to step over the line. And it is not taken with proud, but unexpected, against all rational calculated behavior and even with regret, like Antigone complaining to the Gods after her actions that she never will know the pleasures of marriage, the comfort of motherhood.
I know it is a discussion which easily leads to the wrong conclusions. Perhaps the intention of my comment is now a little less obscure.

Johan

What is the difference between heroism and civil courage (Zivilkourage)?

Arnon

If the actions of Sophie Scholl can be considered as an example of civil courage I would say: none. Civil courage has nowadays more the connotation of good citizenship, but I believe that originally it just meant non-military courage. Military courage is somewhat different. Comradeship is an important factor in military courage, but surely you are more an expert than me.

Johan

I don’t see the difference between what you call “heroism” and good citizenship. Under the right circumstances good citizenship is nothing less than heroism, I would say.

Arnon

But good citizenship is endorsed by the law, what I was aiming at with 'heroism' is an act in which there is transgression of the law, and hence the radical ethical ambiguity. Of course there has to be courage to testify against criminals in court, save a child from drowning in the sea, et cetera, but at least you know that your act is supported by history as a heroic act, even if you pay with your life for it. But with the actions of Sophie Scholl there was not this guarantee.
Sophie Scholl is now a hero of our time, but the course of history could have been different, even such that she would have the same status as Ulrike Meinhof nowadays. The true heroic act involves a criminal good.

Johan

You are a true revolutionary.