"What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?
"Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the Other to an abstraction. ...
"In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.
"Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.
"Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment."
C0mmentary: Elie Wiesel raises up the value of humanity. In saying, Indifference reduces the Other to an abstraction, he echoes the relational theology of Martin Buber. Buber posited that meaning is found through relationships, when subject (I) encounters subject (thou). (And according to Buber all genuine relationships converge in the Eternal Thou or God.)
Wiesel asks, Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it clear that indifference is never a virtue. In fact it is both a sin and a punishment.
The ethic Elie Wiesel puts foward is a hard, relentless, unforgiving ethic.
Search yourself: To whom are you indifferent? And what is your punishment? (How is your humanity diminished?) Is it possible to live in the real world without lapses of indifference, without subsequent sin and punishment?
When looking at the standard definition of 'indifference', I would be inclined to agree with Elie. Being indifferent to one's fellow-man is a dangerous state-of-mind to be in. From a 'virtue ethics' standpoint, though, I do not believe Elie has this right.
ReplyDeleteIn Aristotle's 'virtue ethics', indifference is in regards to one's own personal recognition. It is to act in a way that is not derived from the intention of gaining personal recognition, but to do good deeds to simply be a good person. To not undertake good deeds with the intention of getting further in life, but to not be falsely modest either.