LinkedIn is a space used by intellectuals to talk about smart things. Some intellectuals may have already experienced fatigue from LinkedIn being transformed into a platform where people talk about war, crimes and breaking humanity ethics code. I urge you to give those people – including myself – the benefit of doubt. Perhaps they are trying to wake you up and highlight that those events are very serious and devastating for them to the extent that they are risking their careers talking about it. We trust intellectuals to not trust any propaganda and seek legit references. Part of this war is about information and misinformation.
Before publishing 34 and 35, I would like to pause here and humbly request everyone to read and reflect. You can then choose to be passive or participate by any means possible.
Imagine a child drowning in a shallow pond and challenge your moral obligations. Would feel compelled to save him? How would you perceive whoever passes by seeing the child drowning without taking any action? If you are indeed able to save the child by taking an action, does it matter to you what distance or proximity you have with the child?
You see where I’m going here. It seems like we have a high chance agreeing together that we should feel obligated to assist those suffering from any kind of disaster, regardless of distance or proximity.
In his 1972 paper titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Prof. Peter Singer – Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University – confronts the issue of passive individuals who fail to take action in the face of global poverty and famine. This can be generalized to any catastrophe that one can take an action towards. Singer argues that such passivity is morally unacceptable, emphasizing the ugly consequences it has on the suffering of those in need.
Singer highlights the stark contrast between the lavish lifestyles enjoyed by individuals in developed nations and the extreme deprivation experienced by those in poor regions. He firmly believes that those who possess the means to alleviate suffering, whether through financial contributions or other forms of aid, have a moral duty to do so. Singer asserts that those actions should be viewed as a mandatory obligation. In times of war, I would also include speaking up, protesting, writing/calling your representatives, promoting facts …etc.
Singer challenges the concept of national boundaries, arguing that governments should prioritize the allocation of resources to assist those in need, even if they are beyond their own borders. He insists that governments have a moral responsibility to address global poverty and famine. Again, you can generalize this to any disaster and also generalize the type of action to all tools available.
Singer’s article serves as a wake-up call, urging individuals, organizations and governments to reject passivity and take immediate action to combat global disasters. Remaining indifferent is morally unacceptable. Active engagement and assistance are essential to bring about meaningful change.
This video (Ordinary People are Evil) also summarizes the paper in a more interesting way.
Khaled Alashmouny 