By Curt Collier
In 1963, Birmingham, Alabama officials issued a decree prohibiting all anti-segregation protest activities within the city. Despite this, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to lead a march in defiance of the injunction and was subsequently arrested. Following his arrest, a group of clergy approached King, urging him to tone down the protests for the sake of civil order. In response, King penned his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” where he eloquently stated, “I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”
Ignoring suffering seems contrary to humanity
These words have inspired many to advocate for justice for the oppressed and marginalized wherever they may be found. There is something inherently human that compels us to feel sympathy and concern for others, and a natural desire to protect the innocent. To ignore their suffering seems contrary to our humanity. Therefore, the impulse to care is not only understandable but commendable. It signifies that we still hold onto hope for positive change and that, above all, we prioritize the worth and dignity of every individual.
However, as students of history, we understand that perceptions often differ from reality, and knowing the right course of action can be more complex than it appears at first glance. “Aye, there’s the rub,” as Hamlet lamented.
How do we discern an ethical path?
The horrific and ghastly attack by Hamas against innocent Israeli citizens left much of the world mourning in support of those families who lost loved ones, family members, and children. The response by the Israeli government to rescue the hostages was understandable, even as many called for restraint. The military onslaught against the Palestinian people has been equally horrifying, especially given the loss of so many innocent families and children. It is indeed a tragic situation when innocent civilians become victims of violence. The conflict between Hamas and Israel is complex, with both sides experiencing significant losses. Discerning justice in such a situation is challenging and often depends on one’s perspective and beliefs. Many advocate for a peaceful resolution and an end to the violence to prevent further suffering on both sides. Yet how do we discern an ethical path in this miasma?
As a result, many have fallen into silence, mesmerized by the despairing images flickering on their television screens. Others have taken to the streets, optimistic that a better understanding of the violent history of the Middle East could sway opinions one way or another. The idea of standing by idly feels unethical.
Many are locked in a daily struggle for survival
However, as I peruse the daily news, I am reminded that these atrocities are not unique to Israel and Palestine. Ukraine is locked in a daily struggle for survival. Civil wars ravage Myanmar, where a brutal dictatorship bombs its own people. Some parts of the world have descended into lawlessness, like Haiti, now ruled in many areas by gangs. I am constantly reminded of the plight of innocent people at our southern border, those languishing in prisons in Iran and North Korea, or condemned to a bleak future of servitude in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even within the gleaming skyscrapers of Dubai.
What decisions should we make? Neutrality is frequently regarded with suspicion in ethical debates, often seen as usurping the moral dictate to act. This ambivalent position is often viewed as evasive and cowardly, lacking the depth of a truly admirable stance.
Some counter that neutrality does not imply inaction. They argue that the most effective form of support is to act as an “honest broker,” akin to a referee or counselor mediating between a quarreling couple. Just-warfare advocates and international criminal courts often operate under this conviction. However, while this stance has its merits, it is often perceived as equally unsatisfactory.
Neutrality carries a duty
While I find it more than ironic, I do believe that the position of neutrality staked out by Caritas Europa (a humanitarian organization connected with the Catholic Church) does offer some insights. They argue that those choosing neutrality:
- First, have a duty to show why it is the right thing to do in a particular situation.
- Second, have a duty to show that the moral objective they are pursuing with neutrality is significant enough to justify this ethical exception.
- Third, have a duty to show that their neutrality does not become a wickedly useful resource for various parties in their pursuit of immoral goals.
I feel that this is an honest requirement. While determining who’s right in an argument can be challenging, there are numerous actions people can take that only exacerbate the situation. Those of us with the privilege of perspective have a responsibility to identify and address these actions. I refuse to engage in tribalistic disputes, as I believe they are zero-sum games that result in mutual loss for both sides. It often feels like watching a meth-head argue with an alcoholic about which vice is superior. Claiming that there are no solutions or wrong choices due to cultural relevance is equally invalid. We can, at the very least, draw distinctions and boundaries and identify blind spots that contribute to conflict.
I choose to act
I choose to be critical of systems that lead to distrust, exclusion, and violence. I align with those who assert that we understand the pathways to peace, yet narrow beliefs often fueled by a lack of education and opportunity repeatedly drive people into harmful situations. My work centers on identifying recurring conditions that compel individuals to act against their best interests. Additionally, I extend support and solace to those who have been harmed, recognizing the privilege of my own position in life, which I have attained purely by chance of birth. Yet in each of these scenarios, I choose to act.
Curt Collier is leader of the Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County.