In today’s world, where the pervasive presence of smartphones, social media, and digital content has allowed human interaction to reach unprecedented levels, one phenomenon remains persistently unsettling—the act of witnessing harm without intervening. Whether it’s a violent altercation in the streets of Los Angeles or a life-threatening situation unfolding before a crowd, the tragic reality is that too often, we find ourselves, and our fellow citizens, reduced to mere spectators. Once, these individuals would have been called passersby—those who, though present, do nothing but walk away. In the modern era, however, these passersby are more likely to pull out their phones, filming the event rather than calling for help. What has become of us? Why do we stand idly by while injustice and violence unfold before our very eyes?

The irony is overwhelming: in a society where we are more connected than ever before, we are increasingly disconnected from each other. We have witnessed the shocking rise of the bystander effect, a psychological phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency when other people are present. But why do we allow this indifference to persist? And why, in the case of so many filmed incidents, are the calls to action replaced with the flashing red lights of cameras instead of the flashing red lights of emergency services?

The Ethical Collapse: Gandhi’s Call to Action

Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most revered figures in modern history, implored us to embrace ahimsa, or non-violence, in our thoughts, words, and deeds. His philosophy was not merely one of avoiding harm but of actively pursuing a path of justice and peace for all, even in the face of adversity. Gandhi’s words are clear: “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” This is a call to action, urging us not just to passively observe the suffering of others but to actively intervene when needed.

Yet, in the modern world, we have moved from this compassionate form of service to a form of service that is passively voyeuristic. The question is: when did we lose the drive to intervene? Why has the very act of witnessing pain transformed from a responsibility to an opportunity for social media validation? Is this the society that Gandhi envisioned—a world where justice is met with indifference, where the disintegration of community bonds allows suffering to fester unseen?

The Influence of Modern Media: From Compassion to Clicks

It is undeniable that the media—specifically, the rise of social media platforms—has altered the way we perceive and react to incidents of violence and injustice. A pervasive culture of clickbait and sensationalism has transformed our awareness of the world. Rather than a call to engage with the world in a meaningful, human way, the media environment we inhabit now incentivizes passivity. As tragic as it is, there is something almost perfunctory in the way so many bystanders pull out their phones, as if performing a duty rather than responding to a need.

The actions of these individuals reflect not an inability to empathize, but rather an overwhelming disempowerment—the idea that personal agency has been abdicated to the ever-watchful eye of the internet. In an age where the surveillance state is no longer a looming threat but a routine reality, we have sacrificed the ability to see each other as equals and began seeing each other through the lens of a screen. This disembodied form of witnessing is one of the key features of the modern crisis of empathy, a crisis that our contemporary leaders—Bob Marley, Abraham Lincoln, and others—would have surely decried.

Bob Marley and the Call for Compassionate Revolution

Bob Marley, a figure whose music transcended borders and social strata, understood the profound power of human connection. His call for a revolution of love was not a call for violent resistance but for a collective transformation of how we view and treat one another. Marley’s anthem, “One Love”, is a direct challenge to the apathy that permeates our world today. The lyrics, full of hope and collective action, cry out for the kind of unity that is sorely lacking in the world today.

In contrast to the passive bystanders who film violence from a distance, Marley’s vision of compassion was not about standing aside—it was about standing together. Marley believed that real change could only happen when we see each other not as faceless entities, but as kindred spirits. In this way, he becomes a moral counterpoint to the current indifference. The question then is not, “Why did we stop caring?” but rather, “How can we rediscover the deep sense of connection that Marley so passionately advocated?”

Abraham Lincoln and the Ethical Duty of Intervention

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most pivotal figures in the history of moral leadership. He understood that when a society fails to uphold its most fundamental ethical tenets, the consequences are far-reaching. In his address at Gettysburg, he famously called for a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But beyond politics, Lincoln’s words serve as a reminder that in times of crisis, it is our shared humanity that binds us together.

Lincoln’s era was one of profound moral reckoning—an era where the human cost of indifference could be measured in lives lost and opportunities squandered. Yet today, we face a new kind of indifference: one of passive witness rather than active participation. What would Lincoln have thought about a world where people sit idly by as others are harmed, where we abandon our collective duty in favor of capturing and monetizing the moment?

General Patton’s Courage and the Call for Leadership

If anyone understood the ethical obligation to act in the face of adversity, it was General George S. Patton. A man whose leadership was forged in the fires of war, Patton understood that leaders must take decisive action, especially when others fail to do so. In the chaos of battle, his soldiers relied on his courage and unwavering commitment to the cause. But in modern society, where life is not on the line in quite the same way, we still face ethical choices every day. Yet the bravery to intervene—whether on a battlefield or in the streets—seems to have diminished.

Patton’s leadership was defined by moral clarity: understanding the stakes and the consequences of inaction. This clarity is sorely lacking in today’s society. What happened to our collective courage? Are we, like the passive bystanders, too afraid to act? The leadership that Patton embodied calls on us to question the systems of indifference that prevail today.

Stanley Kubrick’s Vision in A Clockwork Orange and the Ethics of Choice

Perhaps one of the most unsettling depictions of moral passivity in modern cinema comes from Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. The film, adapted from Anthony Burgess’s novel, explores the disturbing notion of free will versus control. It presents a dystopian world where individuals—dehumanized by the system—no longer feel responsible for their actions. The protagonist, Alex, is part of a violent youth gang who commits horrific acts without remorse or intervention. In one of the most harrowing scenes, a bystander watches Alex’s violence unfold without lifting a finger to stop him.

However, one scene, in particular, is a grim microcosm of this passivity. The tramp—an elderly man who is beaten and humiliated by Alex and his gang—is a victim of society’s apathy, something Kubrick captured with startling clarity. The tramp’s suffering is witnessed not by just one person but by a whole crowd, who either ignores or fails to intervene in the brutal assault. His victimization represents a larger societal indifference, where bystanders observe violence but fail to act. His suffering becomes another spectacle for the crowd—an unsettling reflection of our own society where pain is consumed without any desire for resolution. Kubrick’s portrayal is a harsh commentary on our collective failure to take responsibility for the well-being of others.

Batman’s Dilemma: The Darkness Inside Us All

In the dark, gritty world of Gotham City, Batman—the brooding, morally conflicted vigilante—has become a symbol of both action and restraint. Batman’s famous quote, “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain,” is a chilling reminder that moral decisions come with consequences. In many ways, the bystander is trapped in this very dilemma: watching the decay of society, they may be aware that they should act, yet they remain paralyzed, too afraid of the repercussions of intervention.

The irony of the bystander effect is that, like Batman, we are all capable of great courage, but often we choose to hide in the shadows, too fearful to act. Gotham’s decay parallels our own world, where the indifference of others allows violence and injustice to proliferate. Batman’s mission—an unwavering commitment to justice and order—is a call to all of us to step out of the shadows and take responsibility for the well-being of those around us. Intervention is the first step to turning the tide.

The Path Forward: Regaining the Courage to Act

What has happened to society? Why, in an era of instant information and connectivity, have we lost the fundamental ability to act in the face of injustice? Is it not our moral duty to intervene when others are suffering?

The truth is that we are at a crossroads—an ethical crossroads. The question is not whether we can be compassionate but whether we are willing to take action when it is most needed. Gandhi, Marley, Lincoln, Patton, and Kubrick all offer us lessons in moral courage, but ultimately, it is up to each of us to decide whether we will be the passive bystander or the active participant. The choice is ours, and it will define not just the lives of others but the future of humanity itself.