Abstract
Human apathy towards suffering plays an enormous role in how people interact, who and where misery is encountered the most, as well as the many decisions global superpowers make in their political endeavors. I specifically sought out what causes human apathy towards death and the implications it can have across the world and among society. I wanted to explore apathy in its biological, psychological, and political aspects to gain an overarching understanding of its roots and characteristics. All of these explorations would help to uncover how apathy has ingrained itself in much of our lives as well as how there is still hope to battle it and find better ways to help humanity. By researching and finding examples of the many factors that influence apathy, I found that it is often an interaction of many factors that create apathy among a society as a whole, making it ingrained into everyday life and hard to break out of it. In understanding this fight against apathy and ways that it runs our lives, people might be able to prepare defenses against its influence and create a better world where more people care about the wellbeing of others.
Introduction
Suffering is a concept that many people in their life hear about, but never really get to witness. The likelihood of any one individual’s chance of coming into contact with any type of suffering or misery, primarily in a substantial and effective amount, really depends on a multitude of factors. It is likely that Jews in the time of both Egyptian and Hitler’s rule encountered and witnessed much more suffering than any Jew might see on the New York City streets today. It would also be easy to infer that people born into a poor area in the heart of Iran or Afghanistan have seen more suffering compared to someone born into a wealthy family in the lavish neighborhood of Beverly Hills. Time, geographic area, family lineage, natural conditions, and many other factors can play a role in the worldwide suffering people experience and the chance that any individual may find themselves exposed to the realities of misery.
The factors of misery and suffering, how they can affect an individual depending on the interaction of multiple factors, as well as who might find themselves an audience to them is all very interesting and important. However, they are most significant in this research as a means to understanding why certain people are indifferent, or rather more specifically, apathetic to misery and suffering across the world. Because suffering has played an enormous part in the history of the world and affects many people today, it is strange to think that some people can decide that they do not care about people in these situations. Statistics often share disparaging facts that 151,600 people die each day or that 3 billion people live on less $2.50 a day, yet why are there still a substantial amount of people apathetic to such a large part of humanity simply struggling to live?
It is hard to discern apathy on the individual level unless specifically seeking out biological means of apathetic thought, but it is possible to look at historical trends of who and where apathy to human suffering can be found. A trend throughout history and across the world seems to be that those in excess positions of power exhibiting traits of ambition, cruelty, and selfishness tend to portray the most apathetic attitudes toward human suffering. It is in this idea that a theory appears suggesting that apathy stems from specific biological predispositions to apathetic thought, a political and social power struggle and the influence those in power hold, as well as a psychological view of our social interactions and how certain external forces can influence our apathy toward suffering. It is essential to understand the constructs of apathy in the political sphere and in its relation to power as well as on the individual level to hopefully find ways in which to battle apathy and get people to care more about others, even if just regarding safety and a good quality of life. To further explore this hypothesis, it is critical to delve into these specific factors and find evidence to help answer the question of what makes people apathetic to human misery.
Discussion
In order to understand this question, especially its implications and possible solutions, one must first understand the root of human apathy at a biological level. Scientist and psychologists alike often debate over one of the most basic human questions of what defines or creates the specific characteristics of an individual: nature vs. nurture. In regards to the question of apathy toward suffering, a person arguing for nurture might say the individual grew up in a cruel household where little love for other humans was ever taught. In contrast, a person arguing for the influence of nature could suggest that there is a natural gene or trait that was passed down greatly increasing the likelihood of an individual naturally being apathetic to human misery. While both of these factors have strong evidence to prove their influence over the concept of apathy, researchers often find that the interaction of both nature and nurture can contribute to apathetic tendencies. It is important to focus on both nature and nurture, but it will help to first refine the search to biological influence and the role it can specifically play.
Often people begin to think of attitudes facing human suffering and death to that of impulses and quick actions or carefully considered decisions. In meaning, they generally think of how people make the decisions to care about someone other than themselves and take action toward improving their situation. One example of this would be the Trolley Problem which involves a person deciding whether to let a group of five people on a track get hit by a trolley, or switch the tracks so that it only hits one person. This is a very interesting problem that delves into the specific ethical decision making that becomes integral when taking great care into the concern of the safety of a group of people. What is instead being focused on in this paper, however, is the person who would look at the situation in front of them and not care enough about the people, whether on a moral or even interest level, and not give any careful thought into the decision of making the switch or not. What neurological factors are involved that influence that person’s lack of care for the people in danger in front of them?
There are multitudes of neurotransmitters and hormones interacting in the human body directly influencing the decisions people make and this can play a specific role in society’s understanding of apathetic attitudes. One specific hormone, oxytocin, is “correlated with higher levels of empathy,” meaning that genes containing lower sensitivity to oxytocin may exhibit a lack of or decrease in empathy, leading to more apathetic tendencies. One study found that for predominantly apathetic people, the premotor cortex was more active as compared to motivated people as it might be harder for them to make the conscious effort of taking action in a decision. Certain biological predispositions can leave people unable or make it harder for them to create an empathetic connection with others and cause them to not care if others are in danger. This apathy can also create a danger for themselves as the person cannot care for the safety or well being of themselves. The genes and traits some are born with can limit the relationships they are able to form with others and their care toward them and themselves, but biology is not the only factor that defines people.
Apathy through a biological lense can seem very scary and something hard to overcome, but as stated before, other factors such as people’s psychological and social interactions with others can influence how apathetic they are to human misery. This is where the theory specifically tackles the idea of nurture, or rather the specific action and attention to care people make in relation to and as a result of the people around them. Much of people’s ideas and opinions about certain issues are formed through what other people around them in their lives have taught them. There is no way to go throughout life without being influenced by others in some way, whether the influence is subtle or very obvious. In many ways, the level to which some are apathetic to human suffering or death relates to their exposure to attitudes about its importance and how it affects their lives on an everyday basis.
One way in which people create attitudes in relation to death and suffering is how often they are exposed to it as well as in their vicinity to the death itself. In today’s society and generation of social media and technology, people are exposed to death so much that it has become more of an afterthought and less of a reality subject to specific care. Most of today’s games and media attention focus on violence and death to the point where society has become overexposed to misery, making it just another part of the day. Death has become a separate entity that “just happens” and means very little to people when not directly exposed to it on a personal level. People no longer care about the death of a random man on the street or the thousands and millions of people dying each year in third-world countries because they cannot see with their own eyes how horrible the suffering really is. It is this dissociation with violence that allows so many people to remain apathetic to the constant death experienced around the world.
In relation to societal influence, the effects of isolated group influence can have a great impact on people’s tendency to remain apathetic to specific danger and death on a personal level. One of these groups affects includes the bystander effect, a theory that states people will be less likely to take action and help someone in need when in a larger group of people. Something about being around others makes it harder to feel the personal responsibility of helping, often leading to more suffering for the person in need as the people around them remain apathetic to the situation. Specifically, humans in today’s society when surrounded by so many people begin to “shy away from making the really hard decisions” and, therefore, “risk becoming immune to violence happening in our midst.” Someone could fall down on the steet, hurt right and front of a large group of passerbies, and most people will simply walk by and avoid eye contact, using the crowd as a barrier and excuse for not putting forth the effort of helping someone in need. This is not the case for everyone, but it is true that with more people around, there is less personal responsibility felt by the individual.
When people begin to understand how society and group influence can create apathetic attitudes within them, they can start to take specific steps to battle this inclination to apathy and try to help those who are suffering. Students are often the first target of criticism that they don’t care enough about the people around them or are inclined towards laziness, that they simply can find the effort to care about anything. In reality, however, today’s youth and younger generations are one of the world’s largest driving force in the attention of the problems of death and suffering and a hope towards reducing it and improving quality of life for all. Students are more sensitive and aware of the suffering encountered by people every day, whether that be in their own school or across the world. More people are caring about others, something that comes through an acknowledgment of their faults and recent apathy and choosing to become more empathetic to those around them. Most incoming students are now hoping to become involved, with even about “39.8% wanting to become community leaders,” proving there is a bigger involvement in activism than in years before. People on the ground level, the everyday citizen is trying to make a change and fight apathy toward suffering that they see from others and hoping for a better future with less human misery.
It is not always enough for the everyday citizen or person to fight against apathy, as those in the most influential positions of power are the ones who have the greatest tendencies and inclination toward apathetic ideals. People who are able to reach such high positions of power usually do so by exhibiting characteristics of ambition, drive, and the ability to focus on a goal without caring much about anyone who gets in their way. Hitler, for example, was able to justify killing off an entire group of people to reach his goal of achieving the perfect human race. This caused suffering and death for millions of Jews and others who stood in opposition to him, and many people sat and watched, not caring about all of those who would die horrible deaths. Not all historical leaders have been like Hitler, and many can inspire great change and hope such as Abraham Lincoln or even Barack Obama in recent years. It is impossible to deny, though, the enormous impact they can have on shaping the attitudes and ideals of their people and how many of their decisions can mean the difference for who lives, who dies, and who end up living a life of misery with no chance of escape.
Global powers can specifically manipulate other people in need, picking and choosing to help whichever country they believe can help them in the long run. Some countries suffering millions of deaths due to famine and war are at the mercy of other powerful nations in deciding if it is in their best interest to lend a helping hand. As it is discussed by Eric Markusen and Samuel Totten in their book Genocide in Darfur, the U.S. played a large role in deciding whether the concentrated and intentional destruction of the people of Darfur was indeed a genocide. This power can be used for good in ensuring that the people of the world remain safe from violence, but it could lead to an underestimation of the true horror experienced by a group of people if not seen as a pressing enough issue. How is it ethical that those in positions of power get to decide who lives and who dies and are rarely held accountable? Powerful men and leaders are often seen as more successful if they have less emotion and are able to leave love or hate out of their decisions, but these are the things that drive the world. Caring for people is how most others survive, giving each other a hand and ensuring no one suffers at the hand of another, showing love and compassion. It is essential for the people of the world to come together and fight the ways in which “the power relations underpin conflict and humanitarian emergencies” and start making the well being and human rights of all people a priority. It may be true that the powerful shape the world, but the people also have the power protest and reshape it into something better.
Conclusion
Overall when assessing what causes human apathy toward suffering and death, it is important to understand that biological, social, and psychological influences all come together to shape apathetic attitudes at the individual and societal levels. The specific interaction of nature vs. nature says a lot about what type of people may be the most apathetic, but it is often those in power that prove to be the strongest deciders in how misery affects the world as a whole. The powerful may always remain powerful and the weak remain weak, but human apathy does not have to remain manipulatable by external influencers. As it has been seen, more and more people around the world are trying to fight the influence of apathy, especially students here at USF. They care about the future of the world and the people that live in it, and they are the best chance at ending apathy before it reaches the level of power and influence in the wrong hands. Death should no longer be seen as something that cannot be helped, the crowd should all jump in to help instead of all looking away, and those in power should take a step back and realize the good that could be enacted if they just make an effort. It may seem hard to care, too much to stand up against the laziness that holds many down, but it is possible to find the effort and take action to not be another faceless person in the crowd, but be an enactor of change. It is possible to beat apathy with empathy, love, and a hope for a kinder and safer world for all.
Word Count: 2634
Bibliography
Birth & Death Rates.” Ecology Global Network. Accessed October 29, 2017. http://www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/.
Bonnelle, Valerie, Sanjay Manohar, Tim Behrens, and Masud Husain. “Individual Differences in Premotor Brain Systems Underlie Behavioral Apathy.” Cerebral Cortex, 2015. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv247.
“College students’ commitment to activism, political and civic engagement reach all-time highs.” UCLA Newsroom. February 10, 2016. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/college-students-commitment-to-activism-political-and-civic-engagement-reach-all-time-highs.
Ellsworth, Frank L., and Martha A. Burns. Student activism in American higher education. Washington: American College Personnel Association, 1970.
Greene, Joshua. Moral tribes: emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. London: Atlantic Books, 2015.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, “The Trolley Problem,” Yale Law Journal 94 1985 : 1395–1415.
“Media Violence.” Pediatrics124, no. 5 (2009): 1495-503. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2146.
“Poverty Facts and Stats.” Global Issues. Accessed October 29, 2017. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats.
Sampson, Edward E. 1967. Stirrings out of apathy: student activism and the decade of protest. Ann Arbor, Mich: Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
Schwartz, Shalom H., and Avi Gottlieb. “Bystander anonymity and reactions to emergencies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, no. 3 (1980): 418-30. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.418.
Totten, Samuel, and Eric Markusen. Genocide in Darfur: investigating the atrocities in the Sudan. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006.
Vasko, Elisabeth T. Beyond apathy: a theology for bystanders. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.
YAMIN, ALICIA ELY. Power, suffering, and the struggle for dignity. Place of publication not identified: UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA PRE, 2017.
Writer Review Form
Please attach copies of this sheet to all copies of your own paper. Please answer as specifically as possible.
Who is your intended audience? Be specific.
– This paper is intended for the general public as well as people in explicit positions of power that could benefit from learning about the pitfalls of apathy and understand the power they hold over others.
What are you trying to do in this paper (what is your purpose)?
– I am trying to explore what causes human apathy towards death and figure out ways in which it can be combatted on an individual, social, and political level.
What is the central conclusion or thesis of the paper, and where is it stated?
– My conclusion is that ambition and cruelty can often create apathy among certain individuals in power, governing who is allowed to live or die across the country or who get the help they need when in danger. This is stated near the end of the essay as well as in the conclusion as I realize that apathy can extend into a political weapon that should be contested against through the agency of individuals.
What type of reasoning and evidence do you use to support this thesis? Do you feel you have made a convincing case?
– I have used evidence from specific psychological statistics, historical accounts, as well as social instances where apathy can all be found. I think that in my final draft I can focus on integrating evidence more clearly and effectively to create an even stronger argument.
How have you organized your paper (topically, chronologically, etc.)? You may include a brief outline if you like.
– I have organized my paper topically as I outline the different ways in which human apathy toward death can appear. I first discuss the biological predisposition to apathy and how it can influence apathetic tendencies. I then delve into a psychological perspective of how our social interactions and proximity to death can affect our apathy towards it. I finally discuss the political power struggle of apathy on a global scale and its influence over many people.
What do you like best about the paper? What are its strengths?
– I really like the organization and writing style of my paper. I believe it is easy to follow and that it transitions between ideas well.
What are the paper’s greatest weaknesses? What changes would you want to make in another draft?
– I think the paper’s greatest weaknesses is the integration of evidence which could be implemented more effectively
What specific questions do you have for your readers?
How much do you think about the issue of death and empathy within the world?
As a student, do you hope to get more involved in organizations and activism?
Do you feel you are becoming desensitized to death because of media and entertainment?
Peer Review
Name of Reviewer Collin Tripp
Author and Title and Draft: Katherine Larsen , Apathy Towards Human Suffering and Death
(Give both positive and negative comments. Make your responses as concrete as possible. Think about what feedback would be helpful to you to hear and how you would like to hear it.)
DEFINITION OF TOPIC:
What is the thesis statement? Which aspects of placement and presentation of the thesis did you find helpful?
Thesis: By researching and finding examples of the many factors that influence apathy, I found that it is often an interaction of many factors that create apathy among a society as a whole
Your presentation that it was multiple factors (later identified) that lead to a general sense of apathy today was plainly put and easy to understand. Like many things, it’s never just one factor and each one holds its own importance in the resulting behavior, in this case lack of empathy.
Which aspects of the thesis did you find unclear? What additional background or context would you require in order to understand the thesis?
It assumes entirely that apathy towards suffering IS a general trait of people. You give little examples of why this is a fact; especially in your abstract and introduction. The entire paper runs by this entire topic that all or most people today are apathetic, yet gives little evidence of this phenomenon. Even more so it is hard to believe that lack of empathy is a general trait of human beings – as empathy may be one of our unique traits as a species. But if you can provide an example early on, or some kind of statistic, your audience will be able to understand this claim much better.
ARGUMENT AND STRUCTURE:
Which parts of the paper are the most convincing? Be specific.
When you talk about psychological causes of empathy within hormones and such, that makes lots of sense in the biological/scientific context. Also, you really are onto something when stating people watch tv and see death and think little of it; here I can understand the point of general apathy in humanity. Media and maybe even video games and movies cause people to handle death a lot better, or able to ignore it, and this is something everyone can follow.
Which parts are the least convincing? Why? Gaps? Counter-arguments that should be acknowledged? Unrelated strands?
Basing off what was stated in the earlier section, you do a good job of describing people’s ability to watch death on the TV screen and think little of it, but you sometimes go too far, like when saying people didn’t care about Hitler killing 6 million people. Not only did people not find out for certain until Germany’s fall, but they also must have cared, just not have been able to act, or were not motivated enough to act. What I am saying is people are generally not completely apathetic. Total lack of empathy is normally attributed to psychopathy, or other disorders like autism, here you should find a middle ground. Instead of trying to convince the audience people today are entirely cold and careless towards death, put it to an extent, using your same claims
USE OF REASONING AND EVIDENCE:
Where does the author make effective use of reasoning, evidence or examples to support a conclusion?
When citing scientific evidence and describing other theories like the bystander effect and the lever example, you lead the the right direction. When talking about leadership, Hitler is always a good example of how he turned an entire country into mass murderers – you could even use more evidence from this era to support your claim. You support the fact that students are improving on this poor empathy, by getting involved or becoming community leaders, and goes along with your introduction and thesis.
Are there paragraphs where the author could have used more support?
When you say “Someone could be on the floor, hurt right and front of us, and 7 most people will simply walk by and avoid eye contact, using the crowd as a barrier and excuse for not putting forth the effort of helping someone in need.” I have a hard time believing this, either because it could use more support, or be less exaggerated.
Also like I said, just try to provide evidence to support the part of your thesis that claims that people are generally apathetic.
INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT OR CONTRIBUTION:
What unique insights did the paper offer?
This is a topic that is rarely talked about but is evident today. We have come to accept the common occurrences of death, and here you coin it as a general sense of apathy. I’m sure it can be hard to research, but you compiled many ideas on many different disciplines to support your claim
Where would you have liked the author to commit him or herself more fully?
You seem very committed and moved by the topic. I can tell that you are a person that wants change in this topic and to start that, one must consider the reasoning of the situation we are in. You are certainly all in for this topic, and with that, I would say you have the power within you to make this a fantastic paper.
FORM AND STYLE:
List examples of use of language that you found interesting or that helped you as a reader:
Your vocabulary is phenomenal. So is your writing style. You connect ideas with ease, such as stating your topic sentences clearly, connected them when changing topics, and providing transitions that make its entirety read well. Saying “this delves into this” really connects one occurrence to another, and doesn’t leave any topic straying away from another
Which features of the writing got in your way as a reader?
When writing in first person, it is hard for the reader to take this as a thesis, instead it is much like a conversation between the author and reader. It makes it a bit less professional, and can mislead the reader. I can tell you are dedicated to this topic because you want to talk like it’s a conversation, but try to remember to remain professional and scholarly.
Did this paper meet the expectations of its audience? Why or Why not?
For the most part it does. My biggest worry as I have stated before is your claim rides on the medium that all/most people are careless towards death. You should back this up, so the audience can jump onto this topic, and then everything following should make much more sense. Most of your evidence is well stated, with a few that could have excluded, or better worded. Additional evidence wouldn’t hurt either
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Given all of the above, remind the author (and yourself) what you liked best in this paper?
Your dedication, writing style, and your many glimpses of a great paper throughout. If you can build on the strengths of your paper, you are already doing great. Your evidence comes with clear commentary, as well as it is organized clearly into well-made chronological paragraphs. At the same time your dedication becomes a strength, it can make you become very exaggerated in some claims and sometimes even baseless without provided evidence to support those claims.
What do you think should be the author’s priorities in revising this piece?
Work on supporting the part of your claim that says, “most people are apathetic”, it makes it very hard to continue reading when the claim has you bamboozled. Also make sure all of your evidence is relating to the topic; you provide lots of good relevant evidence, but you also sometimes have gaps of where it is not. And try deleting terms where you say “we” and replace it with something more scholarly such as “humanity as a whole” or “general society”, to get rid of conflicting perspectives. Finally, like I said early, build on your strengths I have stated as they already show signs of a fantastic paper.
Peer Review
Name of Reviewer: Mariam Webb
Author and Title of Draft: Katherine Larsen – “Apathy Towards Human Suffering and Death:
Causes, Meanings, and Implications”
(Give both positive and negative comments. Make your responses as concrete as possible. Think about what feedback would be helpful to you to hear and how you would like to hear it.)
DEFINITION OF TOPIC:
What is the thesis statement? Which aspects of placement and presentation of the thesis did you find helpful?
“It is essential to understand the constructs of apathy in the political
sphere and in its relation to power as well as on the individual level to hopefully find ways in
which to battle apathy and get people to care more about others, even if just regarding safety and
a good quality of life.”
I liked that it was placed at the end of the introductory section after a few examples that embody the topic at hand.
Which aspects of the thesis did you find unclear? What additional background or context would you require in order to understand the thesis?
The thesis was very clear, and no additional information is needed.
ARGUMENT AND STRUCTURE:
Which parts of the paper are the most convincing? Be specific.
The paragraph that starts with the study from “Crime and Delinquency” brings in a lot of good evidence, and you talk about all of it very well.
Which parts are the least convincing? Why? Gaps? Counter-arguments that should be acknowledged? Unrelated strands?
In the paragraph right before your conclusion, you talk about political leaders not caring about the plight of other countries. If you could bring in a notable case where this has happened, it would greatly strengthen your argument. Something like the Syrian Civil War or the Darfur Genocide could help prove your point here.
USE OF REASONING AND EVIDENCE:
Where does the author make effective use of reasoning, evidence or examples to support a conclusion?
In the second paragraph of your intro, and the 7th and 8th paragraphs of your discussion, the examples you talk about build up a good ethos argument in your paper.
Are there paragraphs where the author could have used more support?
Throughout the paper, you need more factual examples that you can directly link to apathy. It’s probably very difficult to find statistical data relating to this topic, but that would help you a lot in proving your point.
INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT OR CONTRIBUTION:
What unique insights did the paper offer?
That apathy is biologically ingrained in humans.
Where would you have liked the author to commit him or herself more fully?
I think if you go more into depth with the last paragraph of your discussion, about the apathy of political leaders, you could bring up some interesting points that would help prove your hypothesis.
FORM AND STYLE:
List examples of use of language that you found interesting or that helped you as a reader:
All the emotionally charged words involving death, like “misery” or “suffering”, help to get the point across. Using synonyms would good, though (despair, desolation, hardship, squalor, etc).
Which features of the writing got in your way as a reader?
Besides a few sentences that were run-ons, everything in this paper sounded really well-written and flowed nicely.
Did this paper meet the expectations of its audience? Why or Why not?
Yes, it did, the evidence brought in was good for convincing the audience of the author’s position.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Given all of the above, remind the author (and yourself) what you liked best in this paper?
I liked your real-world examples best, and how you worked them into your paper. If you could use more recent ones, like the ones I mentioned earlier, that would strengthen your argument.
What do you think should be the author’s priorities in revising this piece?
The only thing I can suggest is trying to find more statistical data. Otherwise, this was a great paper and your ethos argument is very strong.
...(download the rest of the essay above)