But we have already chosen, haven’t we? In turning away we choose what to do about injustice just as much as we would choose if we intervened in any fashion at all.
We choose by drawing the definition of sane lines between the public and the private, forgetting each abuts, is commingled with, the other. We choose not to by saying, this is the public sphere, and I do not have time or ability to do this, sustain this collateral damage, and so we furl the horizon close about our private sphere, our solitary life and carry on. A million bubbles in the mainstream.
And if we make this separation, we are unlike many other peoples of the world, who believe that the personal and the public are dependent on a unified belief system.
What conception of practical politics divides a man into parts and calls it sanity?
The more we turn away, the more we are unable to see when we can help, when someone may need us. Are we never afraid that someday it might be us? That’s why we raise our fists about citizen’s rights, and invasions of the private sphere, but that is a fragile peace. What kingdom is safe if surrounded by hostile enemies?
‘Cholche-cholbe’ is always an average of what is and is not done. If the cholche-cholbe is to be maintained, then there must be some action that opposes the steady attrition and disintegration we keep complaining about. Now, we cannot make people virtuous, nor extract virtue, but we can ask them to maintain some average of action in their own lives, in their own calculations. Of course, they might decide their average is abdication.