Progress doesn’t require funerals

“Progress happens one funeral at a time”. It’s a moderately famous quote, and I think there’s unfortunately some truth to it.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. One of the most beautiful things about science, and scientific literacy and thinking is that it encourages progress. Science gives you bonus points when you admit you were wrong previously. You don’t have to wait for the older generation to die, because if you throw enough evidence and logical thinking their way, they’ll abandon the bandwagon of their generation.

It certainly doesn’t help the enterprise of progress when large wafts of the population deem belief-without-evidence to be virtuous. It doesn’t help when dogmas and ideas established hundreds or thousands of years ago are still being deemed applicable to today. But if you get rid of that mode of thinking, convince people that you should constantly ask yourself why you believe what you believe, you don’t have to wait for funerals to see progress.

One of my biggest concerns for the larger movement of skepticism and religious criticism is that this movement still clings on to dogmas “left over” (so to speak) from when Religious thinking dominated our discourse. The easiest example would be how most of the “New-Atheist” movement still engages in food by violence, or meat consumption.

I’ll be honest. Even though I’m fairly young, I don’t expect to see the day when meat-eating in the western world is looked down upon the same way racism is looked down upon. More ethical modes of food consumption will probably be the kind of progress-by-funerals that I referred to earlier.

But there is hope. One of my favorite bloggers and a very prominent voice in the broader movement of Religious Critique, PZ Myers, has declared his transition to vegetarianism.

In other words, he didn’t need to die for progress to happen.

I’m happy with this. I’ve long felt that vegetarianism/veganism is going to see the greatest impact, at least given current social norms and practices, if we are non-confrontational about it, and if we show people that intelligence, critical, generally normal people can be opposed to institutionalized violence too.

It’s also shows that if you give people the tools of critical thinking, valuing evidence and questioning their own behaviors and beliefs, they can change their own behaviors and do so without apology.

 

Great News!

Let’s look at our handy dandy checklist!

President? Got the Socially Liberal War Criminal back in office. Check!

Senate? We have a democratic Majority, however slight. Check!

House? Err, not so much. 187 democrats to 232 republicans, not the numbers I was hoping for.

And in my own state of Maryland, more Good News!

We’ve made same-sex marriage legal by popular vote, and we passed a version of the Dream Act for undocumented Workers!

And less importantly (but equally as exciting for me), I get to pocket a decent amount of money off of electoral college bets. If only I could thank Nate Silver in person!

Yeah, we didn’t get the House, so this might be two more years of crawling to a better country. Otherwise though, I’d say today’s a better-than-decent day, wouldn’t you think?

Why are Liberals so toothless with Obama?

As I’m sure some of my followers have already ascertained, I’m no fan of Mitt Romney. Pathological dishonesty coupled with bad economic policy, plutocratic values and a history of involvement with a (formerly) racist, misogynistic, homophobic cult of charlatans, not to mention an alliance with a party of childish demagogues is a huge turnoff. Obama is at least sympathetic to social justice issues (i.e. he’s not a bigot), and his economic policy was mildly successful (albeit could’ve been much more effective).

However, I’m tempted to dismiss Obama as a War Criminal for one simple reason. Drone Strikes. These hideous machines of Imperial Sadism are well known as “controversial” due to their reputation for killing civilians. I’m rather undelighted to say that when I first caught wind of this practice having escalated during the Obama administration, I was shamefully flippant. Now that I’ve again caught wind of a bit more information on the matter, I can say it’s not only genuinely deplorable, but an aspect of our Military that is disgustingly inhumane, much to the same degree of our military treatment of Native Americans many a year ago.

Forty Nine out of every fifty casualties being civilians from drone strikes is a fucking huge number. This is the kind of mass-murdering behavior every decent human being should be disgusted by. Worse, this isn’t the kind of number of dead civilians you can flippantly call “collateral damage”. How does the Obama administration achieve such staggering numbers? As the study points out, a practice known as “double tap”, which involves striking the same area twice in quick succession (to prevent people from dragging out dead bodies, or rescuing those trapped under rubble) is largely to blame.

A rather pathetic justification for these obscene crimes against humanity is given in the form of a plea to national security. Well, they are killing militants after all, and they threaten America and it’s values.

I can see an argument for violating habeas corpus in favor of national security. I can see it, but the claim is usually rather spurious. However, you have to be barking mad, borderline Sadistic Nationalist/Racist, to think that killing a disgusting amount of innocent human lives to knock out a few militants is justified. Especially when, as the study confirms, the victims of these attacks aren’t just those who are killed, but those who are terrorized by the attacks. Those who no longer go to school for fear of reprisal simply because a crony was located in your same fucking neighborhood, or those who can no longer function and prosper economically because of these strikes are grievous offenses to human dignity and well being.

And honestly, how incompetent do you have to be to think that the best way to get allies and reduce our enemies is by engaging in mass murder, likely to inflame and enrage people into hating Americans even more? And should five or ten years down the road we find our country is the victim of terrorism by Pakistanis who lost their parents or friends in drone strikes, who couldn’t go to school or had to suffer without enough food because of these drone strikes, we will have no choice but to blame ourselves.

Going by conservative estimates, hundreds of civilians have been killed in these attacks, and many more terrorized. If the Yale/New York University Study is correct (and there’s no reason to think that it isn’t) then the number of innocent victims who have been murdered hangs in the thousands. You cannot honestly deem this much more humane, much more justified than the attacks waged against Americans in the form of terrorism. To claim to fight terrorism by engaging in terrorism is hypocritical at best.

Gare-Bear Johnson and Jill Stein would almost certainly cease this horrible practice, although Mitt Romney’s given the impression that he’d do nothing to cease this vile practice, so I’m forced to declare Obama to be, quite literally, the lesser of two evils. And the worse part is, because liberals are so preoccupied making sure the country and senate isn’t controlled by a economically daft plutocrat and cult member, we can’t criticize Obama on his blatant status as a War Criminal.

After the sixth, I simply won’t be able to praise Obama with good conscience. I hope my fellow liberals will follow suite.

 

 

Intermarriage, Judaism’s worst enemy

I admit, this post is a bit of a departure from my usual material, in that it’s slightly more personal.

Anyone who’s grown up in the Jewish community knows that the number one enemy of Judaism isn’t Greek Fascists, or Islamic theocrats, or Skin-heads, or our genocidally diabetical love for donuts. No, you are often told the number one enemy of Judaism are those damn seductive gentiles!

Whenever I’d attend synagogue, or went to Jewish Summer Camp, or visited family, I was constantly reminded again and again how important it was that I marry someone who was Jewish. Various arguments would be thrown about, but it usually came down to only a few reasons.

- The Jewish people’s continuity depends upon it

- You’ll be happier if you marry someone who shares your faith

- Everyone is secretly anti-Semitic, so you can’t trust those suspicious gentiles!

I want to spend most of my post tackling the first one, but the other two need to be confronted as well.

When they tell me I’ll be happier marrying someone who shares my faith, they make one critical assumption. That I have faith, which without being too specific, is obviously lacking in my life. But there is a point to be had here, which is that you will probably be happier marrying someone who shares your same worldview. I can buy this. However, is it really hard to believe that a secular Jewish worldview would be that different from, say, a Unitarians? I don’t think so. And moreover, you make the assumption that your religion is your dominant worldview which for many Jews, is hardly the case.

The third argument Jewish Purebred advocates make, that “Everyone is secretly anti-Semitic”, might sound like a caricature.

It’s not! I have heard this attitude expressed by a diverse range of Jews, from Orthodox Jews to those so secular they think Chanukah has more theological significance than Yom Kippur, and it’s a consistent view that in some circles has become the dominant viewpoint.

Surprisingly though, it’s always the first argument which irks me the most. Why you ask?

Well, there are two odious assumptions implied in the first argument. The first is that by marrying someone who isn’t Jewish, you yourself will turn away from the faith. In other words, Judaism is so weak and shriveling and pathetic that because your spouse disagrees with you, that will be enough to “tempt” you away from Judaism. The second assumption is that your children won’t grow up to be Jewish. In other words, Judaism is so weak and shriveling and pathetic that raising your kids to be open minded will lead them away, so you have to indoctrinate them from birth.

So, as a young child/adolescents growing up, and being told that I absolutely have to marry someone based off of what I perceived (and still do, actually) as a totally arbitrary facet of someone’s life, because if I don’t Judaism won’t last because it’s so weak and pathetic as an ideology, well, you can understand why I came to resent Judaism for quite some time.

I would be lying if I said that was it though. Having a Jewish mother and an Atheist father was by no means an interesting dynamic. I was raised Jewish, and rarely thought anything of it, but I always saw Atheism as a totally reasonable and legitimate position. The only reason I ever would’ve ceased to consider myself Jewish was because the Religion became theocratic, unreasonably infringing upon my well being and liberties, or teaching things I vehemently disagreed with.

So, when someone asked me why I ‘left’ Judaism, ceased to consider myself “Jewish”, my response was always because it was clear to me that Judaism was only sustainable through indoctrination and quasi-nationalistic absurdities. And I certainly didn’t want to be a part of that.

Now, that’s not to say I see Judaism in that light now. The nice thing about exposure is you realize people aren’t as bad as the representative sample you were exposed to when you were younger.

I suspect Christianity and Islam have similar cultures, and I’d be curious if any ex-theist has an similar experience.

Oh, isn’t this lovely…

Isn’t it lovely? A Greek Journalist gets brutally beaten by Christian and Golden Dawn members in front of a Theater. Oh, and the Police were there too, but not to assist the Journalist.

The Mob gathered in front of the theater to protest and coerce prospective theater goers because an American Play, Corpus Christi (which portrays Jesus and his apostates as gay) was showing there. It wasn’t enough to protest the theater though. They saw it fit to shut down the showing, engage in violence, and make death and rape threats.

[A]fter police arrested one demonstrator and put him on a police bus, Pappas [A Golden Dawn MP] went inside and removed him while police did nothing. The video has been forwarded to a prosecutor, who is to decide what charges Pappas will face and whether any police officers should also be charged for not doing their duty. It was unclear whether he can be prosecuted, however, as MP’s enjoy immunity against all crimes.

It gets better!

Another Golden Dawn MP at the protest, Ilias Panagiotaros, is alleged to have threatened the actors in the play, telling them, “Your time will come.” Party spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris, also an MP and is facing assault charges in another case, declared that Golden Dawn would “intervene forcefully whenever the religious sensibilities and collective history of Greeks is insulted.”

The extremist party advocates a Greece for Greeks only, wants all immigrants deported, land mines planted at the country’s borders, has intimidated homosexuals, has an agenda that is also anti-Semitic and is staunchly religious. It is rising rapidly in the polls and has already overtaken the once-dominant PASOK Socialists in Greece’s political standing.

The Greek Reporter isn’t lying. The Golden Dawn seems to be open about it’s desire to, at the very least,  expel the immigrant population from Greece, demanding Greek purity.

What’s worse? Well, even the United States is plagued with vocal Fascists, but they don’t operate within the Senate and House of Representatives. And unlike Greece, we aren’t suffering to the same degree from economic troubles.

Now, it should also be apparent that the situation Greece finds itself in isn’t unique, and it certainly isn’t the first time we’ve seen events play out as they are. Dare I say the elephant in the room when discussing Greece post-financial Crisis is their almost perfectly operated attempt to mimic Germany during the Wiemar Republic, prior to the 1933 elections.

It’s no mistake either. Germans saw themselves suffer extensively from economic hardships after the first Great War. Only then did the Nazi’s rise to power, gaining popularity, spewing their anti-Semitic, homophobic and anti-liberal rhetoric. The Golden Dawn hardly deviates from the historical trend.

Economic hardship ensues in Greece, and the Golden Dawn surge in popularity. Golden Dawn thugs descend upon immigrants, homosexuals, and liberals (or socialists), and the Movie Theater incident is one of many examples.

I do not, by the way, take consolation in the fact that the Golden Dawn Party is still a minority in the Hellenic Parliament. They are gaining popularity, and as the National Socialists exemplified so well, you don’t need a majority to win these elections.

So where does this leave us. Well, at the risk of making a false prophecy, I don’t see this situation as turning out well. If a decade down the road, headlines are addressing Albanian genocide in Greece, we can’t say the signs weren’t on the wall. On the contrary, we will be forced to confront the fact that history made no attempt to obscure itself when engaging in repetition, and rather than learn from the lessons of history, we ignored them and let it repeat itself.

The Dangers of Income Inequality

This is about a year old, but I can’t believe I didn’t notice it earlier.

It’s a TED Talk given by Richard Wilkinson about the corrosive and poisonous nature of income inequality, and the video is quite informative. Wilkinson does a very good job of succinctly demonstrating how greater gaps in income inequality harm the general well-being of a society, and he even goes a little bit into the psychology behind inequality.

I bring this up for a few reasons. First, for those of you living in the United States, the topic of income inequality, wealth redistribution, taxes, et cetera is of prime importance in the upcoming election. Without pointing fingers and calling names, there is a political party dedicated to the values of plutocracy and the gutting of social mobility, and there’s a candidate who’s failed arithmetic would mean even greater income inequality, in the form of lower taxes on the exorbitantly wealthy and higher taxes on the middle and lower class.

Secondly, there was a bit of an elephant in the room when watching this video. All the countries which ranked low on income inequality were countries like Sweden, Norway, Japan, Finland, Denmark, et cetera. These happen to be some of the most atheistic, irreligious countries in the world.

I find it hard to believe that this is merely a coincidence. At this point, I’m curious which caused which. Did low religiosity cause low income inequality, or did low income inequality cause low religiosity. Or conversely, were both forces working in tandem to create some of the happiest, healthiest countries on the planet?

I’d like to think the latter, but I suspect it’s second one. Regardless, it’s interesting stuff to ponder.

Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say otherwise we’ll kill you!

Okay, maybe that’s a bit hyperbolic. But this is essentially the situation we have here.

In case you missed it, an outbreak of violence was initiated against U.S. Embassies in both Libya and Cairo. What is the reason for all this violence? Well, a trailer was posted on youtube titled “Innocence of Muslims”, which was (possibly mistakenly) interpreted to mock Mohammad and Islam in general.

Yes, that’s right. Criticizing and making fun of a religion is apparently reason to kill others.

When someone asks me why I have such a problem with religion in general, I point to episodes like this. If your ideology demands you kill those who criticize it, then your ideology is too weak to be taken seriously.

Islam however, is unique in this regard. If I posted a video of me burning a Torah scroll on Youtube, not even the most zealous of Ultra-Orthodox Jews would think of killing me or my family, let alone someone who represents the country I live in. And the only way I could get a Christian to kill me is if I worked at an abortion clinic.

It’s not that you don’t have Jews or Christians who can’t stand their religion being criticized. There are plenty of fundamentalists hailing from these religions who will make a conceded effort to reject and denounce criticisms of their faith without actually responding to the criticisms (i.e. Calling someone Anti-Semitic because they are against unnecessary violence on eight-day-old infants). And this speaks for the insecurity and pathetic nature of these religions.

Still, in the 21st century, you won’t get killed because you made fun of Jesus or Moses. It’s unfortunate that you can’t say the same for Mohammed.

What is more distressing, at least for someone living in the United States, is the reaction some people have had.

Here, we see how the Embassy responded.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

The last part is particularly concerning. I wouldn’t define criticisms of a religion (even bad criticisms, which is actually the case with “Innocence of Islam”) to be abuse of free speech. In fact, even if you shouted “ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF THE DEVIL” in front of the Freedom Tower with a megaphone, that still wouldn’t be an abuse of free speech.

Death threats would fall under the category of “an abuse of free speech”. Threatening the physical well being of others and their families is an abuse of free speech. However, criticizing a religion, no matter how much it offends others, doesn’t constitute an abuse of free speech, ever.

Even saying overtly false statements doesn’t constitute an abuse of free speech. If it did, half the Republican party would be rotting in jail because of denial of Evolution, Global Warming, or speaking complete nonsense about how women’s bodies have a built in defense mechanism to prevent rape babies (I’m looking at you, Akin).

So why would the American Embassy say something so incompetent? Probably because they recognize that Islam is unique in it’s barbarism and violence (at least in the 21st century), and thus it’s practitioners should be pandered to.

I understand this mentality, and perhaps I would feel differently if I was a diplomat or had relatives or friends working in an American Embassy in a predominantly Islamic state. But I find the attitude of “walking on eggshells” to be insipid and counterproductive.

The message being sent is one of an approval of violence. Fundamentalists can be as violent and zealous as they want, because they will always get their way. I seriously doubt that a sustainable, healthy global civilization will be possible when large portions of the world see violence as an effective means of silencing that which they don’t like.

And even then, Islam needs to learn to grow up. The Catholic Church stopped burning Atheists at the stake centuries ago, and they held the title of “World’s Worst Religion” for a long time (a title I’m afraid Islam has usurped). And indeed, there are plenty of Muslims who aren’t spoiled children, who don’t throw extreme tantrums because their feelings were hurt, and in many cases will debate Atheists/Anti-theists like Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Lawrence Krauss.

I wonder, when will western liberals finally be honest about the threat religions, particularly ones which are so antithetical to western values (like freedom of speech), pose to the world.

Outta Town…

Just to let you guys know,

I’ll be heading out to tour the American Southwest for about two weeks, visiting family and seeing the sights. As such, I may or may not get to posting anything over the duration of my trip. However, come September, normal blogging will resume.

- MP

Religion, a good way to place Brick Walls

Oy Vey! I’ve stumbled upon this piece entitled The Politics of Religious Slaughter – How Science Can be Misused. As you can imagine, I was not amused.

The article actually did a good job of reminding me why I find religion so repugnant. As I’ve highlighted earlier, Religion (at least, the Abrahamic Religions) are staunch advocates for anthropocentrism. A concept that is distasteful, to say the least.

Much of the article is filled with slaughter apologetics. To start off…

The religious slaughter of animals is sometimes a challenge for the modern meat slaughter industry because the process is slower, it requires more skill on the part of slaughterhouse and the slaughterman, overall it requires more attention to details of animal handling, and it needs specialized equipment that is often expensive, especially for higher line speeds.  But religious slaughter of animals also has some benefits in the modern era such as the fact that the animal is killed by a person with religious training who cares about the animal using a razor sharp knife that is free of nicks.

A few of these claims are actually tied to reality. I can’t speak for halal, but Kosher slaughtering is certainly slower, more expensive, and in need of specialized equipment. Just take a gander at some Kosher Slaughtering here in the United States. They use Cattle Prods, although in the spirit of modern technology (or religious fundamentalism), they avoid the defunct stun guns employed throughout the rest of the industry.

But what about the rest of it? Certainly the gist, which is a common sentiment amongst slaughter apologists, is the remark that “the animal is killed by a person… who cares about the animal”. Really! You may as well argue that a rapist who had a vasectomy cares about his victim. Or that a domestic abuser cares about his girlfriend/wife because he refrains from using brass knuckles. It’s certainly the grandest stretch of the imagination I’ve ever seen to think that those who slaughter non-human animals for taste and profit are genuinely concerned for their well-being.

Obviously, this isn’t the only claim made which disgusts me.

[A]s consumers are in less touch with their food supply, and have no sense of slaughter, the ability to pick off one of the less understood forms of slaughter is attractive to groups whose agenda often extends beyond animal welfare to anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and the end of animal agriculture.

It’s good to see that not only is opposition to animal agriculture not considered to be an interest in animal welfare, but it’s also put on par with anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Wonderful! Although, I think I get why.

In a subject as sensitive as religious slaughter of animals, this vocabulary can be a source of tension. Thus, calling the process “ritual” slaughter versus “religious” slaughter of animals gives it a different tone.  Other members of the religious communities recommend the term “traditional” slaughter, which encompasses other traditions that cause unconsciousness by a neck/throat cut such as many on-farm slaughters, but with a much wider range of acceptable practices.  But this also distracts from the idea that in the case of kosher and halal slaughter, the slaughter of animals is tied to a higher religious purpose.

This person is genuinely concerned about religious freedom. That’s fine, I get that. But this passage also highlights why I so thoroughly despise the obsession over respecting religious belief, tradition, et cetera. It is nothing more than a pathetic, asinine attempt to justify non-human animal cruelty. Appealing to tradition can justify almost any behavior you want, from ethnic cleansing to stoning someone who is homosexual.
The same can be said for the final claim, that the slaughter of animals is tied to a higher religious purpose. Indeed, scooping the heart out of fully conscious tribals on the peaks of pyramids was one of the most imperative religious doctrines of the Aztecs.

When the topic of dietary ethics comes up at dinner tables, with friends and family, it’s nice to be able to have a genuine conversation with someone about the ethics of eating non-human animals. From animal sentience to misunderstandings about animal agriculture, these conversations can often go quite well. But when the person is religious, the discussion hits a brick wall. Because, thanks large in part to well-intentioned Religious moderates, the person can simply hide behind the line “It’s my religion, therefore, respect it!”.  And nothing is more detrimental to ethical progress (or scientific progress) than the cowards tactic of hiding behind one’s own religion.

Now, to be fair, the essay isn’t so much in response to people like me who want to see animal agriculture cease to exist (a reality I doubt I will get to witness, but one can hope). It’s more or less in response to the political climate of European and Oceanic countries, where a concern over the well-being of animals has resulted in opposition and restrictions for religious slaughtering. I admit, I’m not intimately familiar with the politics surrounding it all, though I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some genuine racism and Islamophobia at work.

And if a secularist were to justify animal cruelty by appealing to tradition (such as Spain and the running of the Bulls), that would be equally pathetic.

I understand that criticisms of animal agriculture are genuinely threatening to the religious dogma of the Abrahamic religions (although Judaism and Islam are uniquely threatened to a much greater extent than Christianity). But honestly, we’ve been down this road before. Evolution and gender equality and sympathy for Native Americans and slavery abolitionists were all threatening to Abrahamic religions at one point or another. Let’s cease to stymie long overdue discussions about ethical food choices with appeals to respect religious tradition and purpose. It’s certainly not going to move us toward a more compassionate and sustainable civilization if we continue to cower behind faith and tradition.

The Dangers of being a Bystander

This actually happened a little over a month ago, but I didn’t become aware of it until yesterday.

In Arlington, Virginia, a man had been struck by a car, and his inanimate body was lying near a bus stop. People walked past the bus stop, some even got unto the bus. But the only action taken by anyone was that one individual took it upon himself to inform the authorities. Nobody stopped to see if the man needed help, if he was dead, and so forth.

Stories like this aren’t uncommon, but they are a stark reminder that as a species, we can be blatantly ethically inept at times when we wouldn’t think possible, and appropriately, Social Psychologists have come to label this phenomenon the diffusion of responsibility.

It’s probably not difficult to think of a time in your life where something out of the ordinary happened in a crowd of people. And this “something” required attention of some sort. That “something” may have been a dead body on the street, or green gas coming out of the vents in a room. And you can probably remember thinking to yourself, “Oh, someone else has probably alerted the necessary authorities already” or “I’m sure some other person more knowledgeable than I will take care of this situation”. And you can probably remember seeing that everybody else in the crowd is acting as if nothing is out of the ordinary. And chances are, they are thinking one of those two things as well.

This is what is referred to when psychologists talk about a diffusion of responsibility. Feelings of responsibility are diffused when there is a crowd of people with no authority figure present. The larger the group of people, the less responsible people feel. This behavior isn’t uncommon. In fact, it’s the norm. And this bystander effect is clearly visible in the video in the link.

Now, the point is not that human beings are inherently indifferent to the suffering of others. And we know this because, when people encounter situations like this when there is no crowd, they are much more likely to act. If you see an inanimate and scarred man in the middle of the woods, you’re more likely to offer your assistance than if he’s in front of a grocery store at mid-day.

Why is this? Well, part of it has to do with the fact that we assume too much on the part of others. In the case of the Arlington bus stop, we assume that someone else has already called the police. If we are in a room with a group of strangers, and green gas starts to seep out of the vents, we may think that, since nobody else in the room is concerned, neither should we. Of course, if everyone thinks this way (as indeed, the vast majority of people do), you can have disastrous consequences that would’ve been avoided if people didn’t assume.

And this is partly why the presence of authority figures prevents this from happening. Authority figures know that it’s their job to handle these situations, and not the job of others.

Unfortunately, when the man at the Bus Stop in Arlington finally received attention, he was found dead. And it’s uncertain that, even if people had been quick to act, he would’ve been saved. But the lesson is still important. As human beings, our ethical intuitions about any given situation can be remarkably atrocious. And in situations like this, there is a normative behavior with genuine consequences.

So, if you see a situation which requires attention, such as an inanimate body on the sidewalk, assume the worst in everyone around you. Alert the necessary authorities, call attention to the individuals suffering, and don’t assume someone else will. Because by the time someone else gets around to it (if someone else gets around to it), it very well may be too late.