Not so innocent bystanders

There seems to be a similar misconception about welfare recipients: that the poor somehow bring on their plight themselves and will squander any help that's given.

So help is not offered unconditionally. It was IMF policy for much of the past quarter-century to attach strings to aid for some of the poorest nations. Sachs calls it “budgetary belt-tightening for patients much too poor to own belts”.

Are the excuses for inaction on poverty anything more than an expression of the same social disconnection and associated denial of moral responsibility exhibited in the Bulger and Genovese cases, indeed in all instances of bystander apathy?

The nations of the G8 do not feel enough of a connection to the people of Africa. Those in power in the U.S. cannot empathise with the plight of poor blacks. The Australian Government cannot identify with its indigenous population.

Ultimately it comes down to the attitude of individuals: the political is personal. As Sachs says, “Great social forces are the mere accumulation of individual actions …” And before we ask how governments can change, we have to ask how to change individuals.

Witnesses who do nothing to help victims are more often than not "upstanding" members of society. But only because our society demands little in the way of personal moral responsibility.

We grow up learning certain standards of behaviour that enable us to function well within the framework of society. But we tend to follow the rules in blind faith and don't learn to develop our own convictions. Instead of being autonomous and morally responsible, we become impotent bystanders.

Bystander apathy comes in many forms: the neighbour shutting his ears to domestic violence; the citizen voting only for more money in her pocket; the politician governing only for the affluent majority.

There are heroes too, those who go out on a limb to help others: the frontline health worker; the politician who crosses the floor on a conscience vote; the pro bono lawyer; the human rights activist; the volunteer.

But we need more of them. We need to teach our children to see the world's people as family ("only connect", E.M. Forster implored) and to develop a sense of moral autonomy. Perhaps then they'll have the courage to act on their convictions, individually and collectively.

With all the public bluster about "values" in schools, why don't we run those ideas up the (mandatory) flagpole?