Summary Of The Perils Of Indifference

A man is walking home late at night from work. He is tired and rushes to get home. He sees a man about to sexually assault a woman. He can’t see the face of the woman because of how dark it is. He was about to walk away when he remembered his four daughters. He decided to try to stop the man, even though he was much more muscular. He managed to get the man off the woman and make him leave. He then asks the woman if she is okay, and the woman responds, “Dad?” There are three people in that story. Three different sets of morals. The man about to sexually assault a woman, a man who decided to help the woman, and the woman who needed help. He only decided to help her on a whim. Had he not helped her, his daughter would have been sexually assaulted.
In response, in the article “Elie Wiesel’s The Perils of Indifference” by Elie Wiesel, he recalled that when American soldiers liberated his camp he saw how angry they were at witnessing the events that occurred there (Paragraph 2). American civilians had no idea about what was happening to the Jewish people in the concentration camps, or at least know the full extent of the egregious treatment. The moment the American soldiers saw the horrible conditions and what was left of the survivors, they felt rage that this had happened. They had not felt rage about it before, because they did not know. Emotions and actions are wasted on something that does not exist..
Similarly, in “The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle” by Peter Singer, “By the time anyone had heard of the events and responded, the victims were dead or had survived without assistance. When no one knows about a problem, it’s not a problem. There is no need to be concerned about something that has not happened. There is no one to help when there is no trouble.” When someone sees a commercial about a dying puppy, they call in to donate. When someone sees a homeless person they might want to give money. What would people do when nothing is wrong?