P3+JWachman

__Human Obligations__

An individual judges right from wrong by analyzing the particular situation and applying their morals and ethics. Something “wrong” will usually raise a red flag to the individuals because it conflicts with their morals and ethics. However, what’s wrong for one person may not be for another. In //The Grapes of Wrath//, by John Steinbeck, the struggles of migrant farmers portray a perfect example of the roles individuals have in confronting injustice. The roles of individuals are further supported by three separate texts based on homeless people. If an honorable and ethical individual sees an injustice outside their moral standards they have a right, and depending on the seriousness of the injustice, an obligation to confront it.

There are two steps in confronting injustice. The first step is to realize that something is wrong and decide if it is an injustice. The Grapes of Wrath is a portrait of a conflict between the powerful and the powerless, as well as the Haves and Have-Nots of America during the Great Depression. Thousands of families lose every part of their home and lives because they are driven off by the money starved banks and the government. They have to sell almost all of their possessions just to survive a trip to find a new home. “You’re not buying only junk, you’re buying junked lives. And more – you’ll see – you’re buying bitterness” (Ch. 9; //The Grapes of Wrath//). They have to start anew with only a will to work and a pocket full of hope. Unfortunately, most families don’t have any other option than to just accept losing their farm and moving on. They are a part of the things they lose. This is a huge injustice on those families, but in order for anything to happen they would need to act on it; but even before that they need to quit being bitter and realize that their lives are being torn apart. Because this is such a huge injustice their ethics should have kicked them in the direction of fighting it. However, the shock of the whole situation may have caused a delayed reaction. Chapter fourteen discusses the magnitude of migrating families to the west and how sorry their situation is. Steinbeck discusses the importance of distinguishing results from causes. When a migrant sits with another and discusses their problems, “This is the beginning – from ‘I’ to ‘we’”; anger grows as does the number of migrants. This is when the anger begins to spread and the realization of the injustice occurs. If the migrants realize their plight and the causes, then reflect on the result, they can work together towards fighting for a solution and might survive. The process of realizing an injustice is reinforced by the selection “Homeless”, by Anna Quindlen. In the writing Quindlen stresses focus on the details of homelessness, rather than viewing it as a whole issue. “We turn an adjective into a noun: the poor, not poor people; the homeless, not Ann or the man who lives in the box on the woman who sleeps on the subway grate” (Homeless). Quindlen wants people to concentrate on the details. The injustice here is that Americans are becoming more and more clinical over the years and dehumanizing issues. Homelessness is viewed as a problem, but without faces and names put to it. The issue has lost an emotional connection with the average American and they end up working around it. They have an obligation to not lose focus and become cold on the fact that people are living on the streets, not the poor. Their obligations are to acknowledge that something is wrong, and then decide, based on morals, if they will act on it. Either way, the injustices of the homeless as well as the migrants need to be realized and then acted upon by moral individuals.

Once it is realized that the injustice exists, the second step of the moral individual is to confront it. With the situations of migrants declining they realize that this is their land and it shouldn’t be taken away from them. The stock market crash sent the U.S. into money frenzy. Even the banks went bankrupt; the reason for farm foreclosures. The banks force the families to uproot their entire lives, “but a bank or company can’t do that, because those creatures don’t breathe air, don’t eat side-meat” (Ch.5; //The Grapes of Wrath//). The banks acting like inhumane machines and destroying countless lives is a huge injustice. The bank is viewed as evil and many folks act off their anger against it. By not acting, or accepting their fate, they are throwing their lives away. Especially knowing they are being wronged sets a foundation to build a wall of justice. As many moral migrants begin speaking to one another anger and frustration multiplies. They see more reasons to stand up and then begin to work together towards making things better or acting against their injustices, which now are being added on to by selfish westerners. “The families learned what rights must be observed...and the families learned, although no one told them, what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed” (Ch. 17; //The Grapes of Wrath//). The migrants realize their plight and in an attempt to reconcile their lives, build little communities with laws and restrictions where they can begin to make further strides towards obtaining their right to be treated fairly. It’s a terrible injustice when their neighbors kick them while they’re down. They need to accept the migrants and join in similarities rather than ignoring them and considering them a burden due to differences. The acceptance and understanding lacking here is also described as being in short supply in the essay “On Compassion”, by Barbara Lazear Ascher. In her essay she discusses how in New York the homeless are involuntarily being taken off the streets. She believes the intentions are humane but the real reason for the move is because, “we want to protect ourselves from an awareness of rags...we do not wish to be reminded of the tentative state of our own well-being and sanity. And so, the troublesome presence is removed from the awareness...” (On Compassion). People can’t deny the existence of the helpless as their presence grows. This is a huge injustice towards the fellow man; even after the problems of the homeless have been recognized they just brush them under the rug. Ascher later goes on to discuss the importance of learning compassion “by having adversity at our windows” (On Compassion). By having adversity at their windows it would become so familiar that people could begin to identify and empathize with it. Every person is a part of the human race and connected in some way. If people take the time to further acknowledge the homeless instead of putting that knowledge our of their minds or regarding them as a burden, they can live up to and give the morals they were brought up with justice by taking action. By realizing that they too are human they can, if they choose, help them along their way. Although, sometimes the motives for helping them can be questionable. This is important because many instances were discussed in this essay where the homeless (have-nots) interacted with the haves. It is a likely possibility that in those situations the average man helps the homeless person for selfish reasons, such as getting rid of them. It’s not really righting injustice if it is done for selfish reasons by a person less likely to be morally up to par with the society’s standards.

If a person is lacking in their morals and ethics they might not act on an injustice and possibly not even acknowledge the issue. In a person lacking morals they just don’t see the injustice as their problem. In The Grapes of Wrath when the migrants arrive in California they aren’t treated very well. “The great owners formed associations for protection and they met to discuss ways to intimidate, to kill, to gas” (Ch. 19; //The Grapes of Wrath//). So many Californians took advantage of the migrants. They didn’t even see that these are broken people affected by injustice already, and they aren’t helping. These people obviously can’t even judge right from wrong. They are failing in their obligations as humans to help out their fellow man. But then again, they may have thought the migrants were to blame for their losses and saw no reason to lend a helping hand. A similar situation is seen in the essay “Homeless: Expose the Myths”, by Joseph Perkins. The essay describes how most homeless don’t choose to be homeless anymore. Instead it is because they have lost everything due to drug and alcohol abuse; some suffer from mental illness. “Two things happened between 1963 and 1993 to give us today’s homeless population: All but the most dangerous patients were disgorged from state mental hospitals and illegal drug use exploded” (“Homeless: Expose the Myths”). In these times people think that most homeless people live on the streets because they’re poor. By associating homelessness to poverty, “advocates obscure the real root of the problem. If we really wanted to help the homeless, we would pay for more attention to their mental health and substance abuse problems” (“Homeless: Expose the Myths”). America is a great society where if someone wants to be successful they can be. If people want to be poor, they can be poor. The normal person usually doesn’t feel obligated, even by moral standards to help homeless people that have fallen due to their own mistakes. Homelessness isn’t necessarily an injustice. This is why a lot of people don’t see it as their problem to fix.

When an honorable and ethical person sees an injustice that defies their morals they have an obligation to confront it. This pattern is seen in //The Grapes of Wrath// as well as texts on the homeless. Injustices are seen everyday, yet it is up to the individual how they will approach them. On the other hand, individuals may decide not to approach them at all because they have a different view that discounts the so called injustice. In conclusion, there really isn’t any way to positively say that an injustice is an injustice and someone is obligated to fix it. Whatever happens is going to happen and hopefully morals will play some kind of role.

jwachman per. 3