(I had no idea I'd be writing about politics today.)
Let's start with Elie Wiesel: "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference."
I was reading the comments on a YT video "How the Internet was Stolen", where I saw someone say "ignorance is evil" in a thread about Google ditching their motto "Don't be Evil". This lead me recall the sentence by Elie Wiesel.
I occasionally have discussions with GhatGPT about things, and I was curious how it would answer to this question:
The idea that "indifference" is akin to evil is a concept often attributed to various thinkers and writers, suggesting that apathy or inaction in the face of injustice or suffering can be just as harmful as the wrongdoing itself.
One well-known expression of this idea comes from Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who famously said, "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." This reflects the belief that turning a blind eye to injustice or not taking a stand against evil can perpetuate or exacerbate harm.
The sentiment is that when people are indifferent to suffering, injustice, or wrongdoing, it allows evil to continue unchecked. By not actively opposing harmful actions, those who are indifferent can implicitly enable or tolerate them.
Now that I was explained what the phrase means, I kind of realized the lack of logic in it. I mean where I previously agreed with the sentence itself, I now disagree. It's because if we were to think accordingly, we would be obligated to oppress difference of thought itself.
Let me explain... It is true that the idea of indifference being akin to evil may highlight the dangers of inaction or apathy, but we should be able to understand that such perspective can have quite unintended consequences, especially when taken to the extreme.
The expectation being that everyone must always act against perceived injustices could itself lead to a society, where differing opinions are suppressed in the name of combating indifference.
Such society in turn risks promoting a climate where tolerance for varying views is forgotten, and people are pressured to align with a particular ideology or activism, which can lead to polarization or authoritarianism.
I think we therefore should consider prioritizing respecting individual autonomy and freedom of thought over encouraging active engagement against perceived injustices.
Genuine change does require advocacy and action, but we can't forget leaving room for different perspectives, healthy debate and freedom of choice no matter the cause.
Using "indifference is evil" as a stepping stone for action might at first sound emphatic towards social responsibility, but it would be wise to approach it with nuance and avoid forcing conformity and/or dismissing differing opinions.
What I'm getting at is is we can't excuse hate, to "not be evil", and pretty much most of the times we just must choose to be indifferent to problems that are not directly related to us.
There are a few points to consider.
I am not entirely convinced that there is an evil that we should all be concerned about, lest it is inherently in ourselves, and something we recognize to be unhealthy to us as individual human beings, or others. What we should be concerned primarily, is the well-being of our immediate surroundings, then expand from that.
It is ultimately an utilitarian view. There is no inherent good or evil, especially when you consider the scale of everything.
"Evil" itself is from my point of view, just a perceived ill that happens due to varying consequences. It is entirely subjective, but still, it can affect a lot of people, and what is ultimately subjective can turn into completely objective when you weigh enough experiences and feelings, and compile them into one demographic experience. "Evil" can be real for them, but it is still all based on a feeling.
The question of whether "evil" is a concrete, intrinsic quality or merely a perception and a feeling, based on varying consequences is a profound and complex one. Philosophers, theologians, psychologists, and sociologists have debated this topic for centuries.
Upon studying this I find that there are basically four perspectives where "evil" can be considered in; philosophical, theological, psychological, and sociological.
In the philosophical perspective, "evil" can be either objective (inherent and independent of context or perception), or subjective (construct determined by cultural, societal or personal perspectives.
The theological views are based in both religious beliefs (personified, like the Devil), or good vs. evil dichotomy (a moral framework).
Psychological perspective focuses on human behaviour, intent (motivation behind certain acts deemed as "evil"), and also context and consequences (perceived evil, significant harm, or violations of societal norms).
Lastly, Sociological considerations like 'social constructs' (influenced by culture, tradition and power dynamics), justice and law where rules determine what actions can be labeled "evil" based on their impact on societal order and well-being.
My personal view is a bit more utilitarian on what people should not do, not necessarily that it's evil to do those things, but that it is counter-intuitive, or perhaps not even logical when you consider your own well-being and not just others'.
Since doing an "evil" deed can land you in a world of pain, not only in the legal sense, but when factoring in your own conscience and the reactions of others', it might not be entirely wise to act out against that logic.
A utilitarian approach to moral and ethical behavior focuses on the consequences of actions and their impact on overall well-being. This view aligns with the idea that "evil" isn't necessarily an intrinsic quality but rather something that can be defined by its harmful consequences.
This view however presents another problem: How about when an action perceived as harmful, leads to beneficial consequences? Let's say, if there is a situation, where you can save millions of people by killing a few?
This dilemma can also be turned on its head. I was once presented with a thought experiment, where a bomb disposal expert is given two choices; either to save his wife and child from being killed by a bomb, or saving a metropolis further away from a nuclear detonation while leaving his wife and kid to die.
What would you do in the above scenario?
(I would probably choose my family. It's certainly a brain-breaker.)
This leads us to the hypocrisy inherent in condemning "indifference" while overlooking other significant events.
Let's consider the Holocaust, universally recognized as evil and appalling.
We often attribute indifference as one of the factors that allowed it to happen. Yet, many of the same voices that condemn this indifference are silent about the atrocities committed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other regimes responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. Why the selective outrage?
Similarly, consider the Israel–Palestine conflict.
Advocacy for Palestinian rights is crucial, but it's often accompanied by calls for violent intifada against Israeli Jews.
Why do we overlook or downplay this incitement to violence while focusing on other issues? At the same time, China's oppression of Uighur Muslims and Russia's invasion of Ukraine receive far less attention.
If indifference is evil, where is the consistency in condemning it?
This attitude also manifests as a self-degradation, or self-hate, where people disregard their own health, and label those who pursue fitness as "fat-phobic". This creates a climate where unhealthy behavior is accepted, or even celebrated, leading to potentially harmful consequences, even death.
Let's move past the Ranty MacRanterson phase. My point is that "indifference" can be a legitimate stance. We're not required to care about every issue. If we were, the obligation would extend to all injustices, not just those that align with the politics du jour.
Although I'm an atheist, I still see some utility in religion. Many people tend not to be utilitarian, and even if they are, they might fail to follow through with rational thinking, instead relying on instinct or personal morals. This can lead to decisions that lack broader benefits.
Religious teachings, like the Ten Commandments or the Psalms, often contain valuable advice for living a good life, even for those who aren't religious. Additionally, for many religious people, the fear of God serves as a strong motivator to avoid actions that might have negative consequences for the broader community.
In the end, whether we're guided by religion, philosophy, or a personal code of ethics, the challenge always remains the same: how to navigate a world filled with complex moral questions. Indifference, when taken to extremes, can lead to societal fragmentation, while rigid adherence to certain beliefs and conducts can result in intolerance and a lack of empathy.
A balanced approach requires us to consider the broader impact of our actions while also respecting individual autonomy and diverse perspectives. As utilitarians, we might weigh consequences and seek to maximize overall well-being, but we must also be aware of the potential costs of ignoring our own needs or disregarding the rights of others.
Religion, too, offers valuable insights into leading a moral life, even for those who don't subscribe to religious beliefs. The teachings and stories found in religious texts can guide us toward compassion, humility, and a sense of community.
Ultimately, our choices define us, and each of us must find a path that aligns with our values and beliefs. The thought experiments and moral dilemmas we encounter force us to question our assumptions and re-evaluate our priorities. They also remind us that, as much as we may strive for clarity, life is often ambiguous and requires thoughtful consideration.
When seeking your own moral compass, remember that you're not alone in this journey. Engage in open dialogue, listen to different viewpoints, and be willing to adapt your beliefs as you grow. By doing so, you'll find a path that aligns with your values and contribute to a more compassionate and just world.
