I was highly tempted to click the thread and exit, just to prove you wrong without actually reading. But I didn't, as you can tell.

I think we all know that justice, when delivered by human hands, is curiously blind in places, and simply ridiculous in others. But one point to consider is...

Most human beings are incapable of judging without emotion. Therefore, apathy is unlikely.

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics; justice is the act of being just and/or fair.

Apathy is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical or physical life.

Morals.

Emotions.

Showing them in a public fashion.

There is a fine line,and I see most standing on the sidelines.


S&F

Originally posted by Starchild23
I was highly tempted to click the thread and exit, just to prove you wrong without actually reading.

thanks for clicking!

I know it was a cheap Psych trick to making the title more interesting but I had to

Originally posted by Starchild23
Most human beings are incapable of judging without emotion. Therefore, apathy is unlikely.

Love to see you elaborate on this...

I personally feel we have WAY more apathy than caring

I lime the image of justice with the scales, in most instances she is blindfolded

Just thought i would throw that out there for what its worth.

Nuff said.......................

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Starchild23
I was highly tempted to click the thread and exit, just to prove you wrong without actually reading.

thanks for clicking!

I know it was a cheap Psych trick to making the title more interesting but I had to

"Apathy" is often assumed when the actual emotion or action or lack of, is due to inhibition. How often have we seen something in a public place that we later think: "boy, I should have said or done something"? We are often "inhibited" from acting in many situations despite feeling we should, or could, as a result of two powerful influences. One being bio-psychological as in "if I step in I might get a punch in the nose" In other words not getting involved in some cases may be the result of perceived self preservation, true or not. Often we exaggerate any personal risk for the sake of our own convenience, not any real risk to ourselves. The second is social inhibitions, regarding our expected behaviors in a given environment, and most of all how you were raised to "act" along with accepted cultural norms. No one wants to look foolish or look like their just "sticking their nose in someone's else's business " (though some people LIVE TO do just that).

But I view justice as an extension of moral and well intentioned behavior. Seeking justice, or doing the right thing even when risky to one self, as in looking stupid, or to some being a pain in the ass, or bringing possible risk to yourself, is often not easy and we are in most societies conditioned (usually, quite subtlety) NOT to "get involved". Overcoming that inhibition is for some very hard yet that's what often makes it "noble"

Another main factor in what appears to be apathy is little more then for most of us, for the vast majority of time we "run on automatic pilot". To step out of that mode requires we make a conscious effort and there are those powerful inhibitory factors that make us uncomfortable to deviate from herd behavior. And just like any "herd" to deviate from its actions and "stand out" is hard wired in us as being risky. Just because we think were not cattle does not mean we don't usually, and in many ways act just like them. When we step out of the safety of anonymity we take a risk, but at least when we feel its the right thing to do, and do so were not just mooing like the rest of the herd. And for most, we feel proud of ourselves, and we should when we do that.

I think it has a lot to do with personal responsibility. Too many have a narrow minded view of the world and can’t seem to cross the plane of concern past their close friends and family. This actually makes some pyschological sense though. When you broaden your concern, you effectively take on the burden of the hopeless, which can be too heavy a load over a more simple and personal approach. It ends up stressing the individual out creating anxiety. You don't have to be consciously aware of it, consider it a defends mechanism.

This is a great thread and makes people really think about why we are psychologically wired to think that someone else will act or take care of the issue. After all, if it's not affecting us directly, then it's not our problem, right?

I'm proud to say that I've been tested in this phenomenon a few times and have done the right thing by taking it upon myself to act.

On the other hand, justice works against us sometimes. When we start reading articles about a bystander to decided to act when they see someone choking. Although they saved the person's life, they cracked a rib and are now being sued. Instances such as these have caused people to think twice and simply hope there's a doctor around. It's a sad instance of damned if you do, damned if you don't. In this event, you just have to ask yourself which one is going to keep you awake at night.

Originally posted by Afterthought
This is a great thread and makes people really think about why we are psychologically wired to think that someone else will act or take care of the issue. After all, if it's not affecting us directly, then it's not our problem, right?

I'm proud to say that I've been tested in this phenomenon a few times and have done the right thing by taking it upon myself to act.

On the other hand, justice works against us sometimes. When we start reading articles about a bystander to decided to act when they see someone choking. Although they saved the person's life, they cracked a rib and are now being sued. Instances such as these have caused people to think twice and simply hope there's a doctor around. It's a sad instance of damned if you do, damned if you don't. In this event, you just have to ask yourself which one is going to keep you awake at night.

I got to mention this because it is so bizarre and fits given the fact you mention a lawsuit for helping someone who suffered some "injury" as a result. This actually happened to me. About 15 years ago I was in LA and there was a carbon monoxide leak in a building that had shops on the lower level and a few condo's on the second floor. The shop on street level included a boutique and I went in to buy a small gift for someone I was later going to meet. It was quiet about midday and pretty deserted, and when I went in realized at ounce there was an obvious smell of gas. I noticed a women's legs were protruding from behind the counter, she had obviously been overcome and collapsed. I'm not a big nor strong guy and this was a rather large women. I was able to drag her out to the street as the fire department pulled up (I have no idea who called them). I did hurt my back but it was no big deal. I gave my name to the police who also showed up and left it at that.

About a month later at home I got a certified notice that I was being sued by the women because in dragging her out I had torn, what I was told was a $12,000 dress! I called my lawyer and told him "OK, then I will counter sue for pain and suffering from hurting my back in the process" and I had a medical report to prove it (only in America right ? ). Well as it happened the judge ruled she was "out of her mind" or something like that and that was the end of the lawsuit. So yeah things like this do happen but I would still help even if I knew all that ahead of time. We need not wonder why so many lawyers make a good living. They need crazy people to hire them in some cases.