is there a line when non-bothering becomes an excuse? the well-known problem of japanese and german soldiers who stood by while war atrocities were committed? what if we stand by and enjoy our nice lives while half our fellow humans live with less than HK$20 a day?
if we see violence towards another human being, do we try to stop it? what if that violence purportedly stops further violence? (e.g. if you could go back in time to kill hitler as a young child, do you do it?)
if we see people killing dogs, do we do anything? what about pigs? dolphins? mosquitoes?
when we don't take a moral stance, is that taking a moral stance?
what should be the general guidelines for non-bothering? is there another answer other than "societal norms"?
- bother if one is causing another bodily harm (this computer is quite possibly assembled and dismantled with hazardous exposure to the chinese worker)
- bother if one is causing himself/herself bodily harm (it's generally acknowledged we're destroying our world and our future generations will pay for it - does that count? does non-exercise count as self-harm?)
- bother if something blatantly immoral is going on (whose definition of morality? what constitutes extreme and blatant? killing hitler as mentioned above?)
- immediacy and proximity matters - how immediate and near does the thing have for us to want to step in and bother people?
