notes from 'sins of omission: a primer on moral indifference' by s. dennis ford. (i know 'primer' sounds incredibly dry, but allow me to advocate for this text: the author articulates the widespread state of indifference toward issues of social responsibilty in a way that has changed me more than any book has in a long, long time. i am enlightened...so please, read on):
p. 28: on loose morality as a coping mechanism for the problem of suffering and/or moral relativism: 'the passion to forget, to overwhelm anxiety and the still small voice of conscience, to live perfectly free of inhibitions and taboos, undisturbed by thought in a hedonistic paradise, creates a tremendous market for drugs, entertainment, and the sexual exploitation of both sexes. 'the lost weekend' has entered our common parlance for good reason; it accurately describes and articulates the deepest desires of the sensuality of nothingness. on a social level, [reinhold] niebuhr argued that the flight to nothingness is an expression of philosophical despair over either the world's manifest imperfections or the futility of ever arriving at 'the truth' amid a host of fragmentary, partial viewpoints.'
p. 29: on the comforts of success and power as other causes of indiffernce: 'complacency is indifference squared, a self-satisfied, unassailable, even arrogant form of indifference. complacency is an inert self-satisfactoin. niebuhr found an example of such complacency in the actions of the liberals of his day. faced with the threat of nazism immediately preceding world war II, liberalism was incapable of imagining the evil actions and intentions of the third reich. insulated by their own preconceptions from a realistic appraisal of the situation, the western nations were incapable of believing that hitler would actually invade the scandinavian countries or, in quick succession, france. ...the powerful can afford to stay comfortably submerged in the routines of life precisely because they can do so with impunity. without daily reminders of a wide discrepancy between exprectation and reality, the powerful lack an inherent context for moral reflection and are thus vulnerable to the complacent sloth of nothingness.'
p. 32: are you narcissistic?: 'in addition to passivity, sloth frequently displays a childlike egocentricity in which its victims can only see and act on behalf of their own self-interest. if passivity is the characteristic reponse of sloth, egocentricsm and narcissism represent its characteristic goals. victims of sloth may not be merely passive; indeed, they may be very active in initiating change or even incidentally improving conditions for others. however, if such activity is driven by egocentricity, if its purpose is merely self-aggrandizement, then its perpetrators are nevertheless victims of sloth. adulthood is an expanding circle of responsibility. to be an adult means to accept responsibility not only for oneself but for others as well, including future generations. egocentric people are not without care, but they are slothful because the circle of their care is too small, too egocentric. sloth is associated with the neglect of duty and, ultimately, with withdrawal from others. egocentric persons exhibit both qualities; they neglect duty toward others and, by their self-centeredness, they separate themselves from the community in a way that leads to melancholy. thus those who are egocentric, no less than those who are passive, embody the slothful sins of extended childhood.'
p. 32-3: on the dynamics of sloth: 'physiologically, sloth is sometimes characterized as a defective form of love. in comparison to the other sins, indifference lacks all passion and affection. it is a life deprived of eros. greed, lust, gluttony, envy -- these are sins because in them the passion for things is placed above the desire for god. sloth is the most terrifying and recalcitrant of sins because it is defined not by misplaced passion but by a lack of desire altogether. it is thus, as william may desribes it, 'the shadow of death,' a passionless state for those living without expectation or eros in a colorless world after the death of god. //...sloth is, as dorothy sayers desribes it, the sin that 'believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.' as such, it is the sin of a defective, inoperative love. //sloth, again physiologically, is sometimes interpreted as a form of physical revulsion. confroted by scenes of a nuclear holocaust, whether in our imaginations or as presented in such widely heralded television movies as the day after and testament, the human soul seems literally incapable of taking in so much horror and destruction. whenever we try to think about nuclear war, we are arrested and feel sick, whereas when we deny our predicament we feel well again and can go about our normal routines. this sense of well-being, based as it is on denial, is a form of insanity because it represents the failure to act in the face of an overwhelming danger. ...'enervation, dulled senses, enfeebled will, stupor, and final paralysis.' ...if we can successfully deny the nuclear issue, we can successfully deny the needs of our next-door neighbor as well.
p. 33: on salvation: 'from a theological perspective, sloth is the sin that most directly bears witness to the need for salvation and to the difficulty of grasping the meaning of salvation existentially. with lust, it is often difficult to perceive what it is that one needs to be delivered from. lust, like most sin, is intrinsically attractive and seductive. sloth is unique because it is inherently unattractive; indeed, it has been descrived as the only sin for which payment is not deferred. no one seeks or decides to become indfferent, to live in a passionless, restless state of noncaring. sltoh is not chosen; on the contrary, it seems to choose and hold its victims captive. to be saved from lust feels like a form of deprivation (or a lack of opportunity); to be delivered from sloth, however, attests to the spirit-filled, enlivening nature of redemption.'
p. 8: on guiding the indifferent toward an understanding of their indifference: 'no one deliberately makes a mistake [for example, the mistake of indifference]. if we think Camus or Kant has made a mistake in his argument, we have an obligation to explain that mistake. we have an obligation to see the presumptions on which a mistaken conclusion is based. ...indifference may be seen as a peculiar type of mistake. so, if i rely on my education rather than my first, gut response, instead of dismissing people who are indifferent to my ideas by labeling them as capitalists or racists or mindless slugs, i have an obligation to explain their mistake from their perspective. only in this way can indifference be genuinely challenged, as it were, from the inside.'
