Ethical Reflections on the Boundaries of Moral Indifference -To What Extent Are We Responsible For Others?

When the lines between moral indifference and indifference blur, it is easy to fall into one of two misunderstandings. It is easy to fall into one of two misunderstandings: moral nihilism or moral disenchantment. If we define moral indifference as any behavior, it tends to lead to moral nihilism. If we define any behavior as non-moral indifference, moral indifference is susceptible to moral disenchantment. Only a clear delineation of the boundaries of moral indifference can aid in the dissipation of the phenomenon. Moral indifference is a moral judgment, a moral psychological behavior, and a social phenomenon. Effectively addressing the boundary issue of moral indifference is a key way to mitigate moral indifference. Specifically, collaborative governance is an effective mechanism for dealing with moral crises, contractual governance is an important channel for upholding moral authority, and network governance is a preferred choice for shaping a moral community.


INTRODUCTION
The "Little Yueyue Incident" of 2011 in Foshan, Guangdong Province, emotionally startled us.Two-year-old Yueyue was run over by a car.For seven minutes, 18 passersby ignored it as they passed by.This incident prompts individuals to consider the following: is there moral indifference in our society?to what extent are we responsible for the acts of others?and how do we confront moral indifference?In reality, moral indifference has never faded entirely.To achieve the good life, it is essential that the phenomena of moral indifference be studied in depth.
The concept of moral indifference is often perceived as highly subjective and uncertain.Moral standards vary across different cultures and social backgrounds.The establishment of the boundary of moral indifference is not a simple "yes"or "no"question, but rather a question of "process"and "degree".The same behavior of a subject may be viewed as indifferent in situation A, but considered reasonable in situation B. Therefore, the problem of the boundary of moral indifference is huge and complicated.
In delineating the scope of an individual's obligations, it is paramount to differentiate between two categories: obligations that are incomplete, directed towards oneself and others, and those that solely concern others.While complete obligations equate to rights, their incomplete counterparts do not bear the same equivalence.The essence of incomplete obligations lies in the realm of personal volition, manifesting in actions that individuals willingly undertake.For instance, the act of kindness: while individuals are morally bound to extend kindness, it remains beyond anyone's purview to mandate its expression.Should an individual discern the appropriate time and context to manifest this kindness, they would have effectively met their moral responsibility.A complete obligation signifies a ubiquitous moral mandate, whereas an incomplete one underscores a unique moral expectation anchored in self-regulation.
The study of moral issues is not a metaphysically valid argument.To study moral phenomena, it is necessary to consider multiple factors such as empirical research and value orientation.On the one hand, the causes of moral indifference, from the perspective of the entire society, should be analysed.On the other hand, the moral behavior of individuals must be governed from a societal perspective.Only in this way can a moral system based on moral consensus be more effectively established.The use of modern social governance theory for moral governance can bear the profound content of morality.The social co-governance system provides theoretical and practical support for moral governance.At the same time, social governance theory can regulate social order.The social co-governance system, with "contract, collaboration, and network governance" as its carrier, can better govern society.On the other hand, the social co-governance system, with "rule authority, preventive mechanisms, and technical support" as its governance means, can more effectively govern society.

Two directions of the blurred border of moral indifference
Consideration of the moral indifference boundary is a rational moral activity.When moral standards become unclear, it can result in judgments that are not rational or just.Under such a situation, moral indifference can easily lead to moral nihilism or moral disenchantment.Thus, the rationality and fairness of moral judgment are the prerequisites to guarantee the normal operation of morality.However, contemporary society's moral boundaries are dissolving, disintegrating, and evaporating (Bauman & Tuleikytė，2013).Only by maintaining the bottom line can the moral order be ensured to function properly.

Moral indifference towards moral nihilism
If any conduct is defined as moral indifference, a lack of moral beliefs can easily be induced.Once moral beliefs are abandoned, it is simple to lead moral indifference to moral nihilism over time.Moral indifference and moral nihilism are symptoms of moral cognition deficiencies.These perceptions are individuals' subjective attitudes toward their own and society's behavior.There exists a correlation between moral indifference and moral nihilism that is not mutually exclusive.However, there is no necessary derivation between the two.In certain situations, individuals or society may experience extended periods of emotional indifference.This emotional indifference typically causes individuals to lose trust in morals.In people's minds, morality gradually loses its sacred status and moves toward nihilism.Thus then, it becomes essential to define the boundaries of moral indifference.
If any activity is defined as moral indifference, then moral indifference will lead to moral nihilism.This theory will surely spark debate.It is understood that people have a conscience, which implies that a true self exists within them.The existence of conscience manifests itself naturally and inherently in its rightful and proper state.Is this not the ultimate form of goodness?Why is it so easily considered immoral, or even nihilism, if it is the ultimate good?Perhaps the answer lies in Heidegger's conception of conscience.
The idea of conscience developed by Heidegger shows the appearance of the world and the capacity to act in it.This idea of conscience is manifested before experience in human beings.In his view, conscience is carefully designed and planned by human free consciousness.Conscience itself does not emerge from a metaphysical entity.By the time conscience arises in the human heart, it has already been placed into a calculable framework.All possibilities have been restricted by logic and governed by human volition.Consequently, both morality and conscience are nullified.Human intelligence and calculation have neither moral nor conscientious components.It is understood that true conscience arises from a priori intuition.Yet, a priori intuition and rational calculation are contradictory.This is the tragedy of the times, and this tragedy has brought unbearable harm to morality.The true state of human existence is never limited to empirical reason alone.Frequently, the unknowable essence remains in a state of uncertainty.In such an indeterminate state of existence, logical reasoning and rational calculation are incompatible.
Moral nihilism can be defined theoretically as moral relativism or nonmoralism.Moral relativism denies moral principles.Morality is always a relative issue.Something that may be considered right or fair in moral framework A, could be considered wrong or unfair in moral framework B (Gilbert, 2015).When moral standards with special authority are appealed to, other moral standards are similarly rejected by this moral authority.According to meta-ethical relativism, moral judgments may disagree in a given situation.However, the moral judgments of these conflicts themselves are correct.This implies that two individuals with divergent moral perspectives may reach contradictory moral conclusions in a single situation (Gilbert, 1978).According to moral relativists, this paradox cannot be reconciled.In other words, different histories and socio-cultural backgrounds result in diverse moral views.The diversity of moral perspectives can result in contradictory moral judgments.Moral relativism is a statement about reality, not the grammar of moral judgments.Since there are multiple frames of reference, moral relativism is more realistic.
Non-moralists criticize the moral perspective and it's judgments on the grounds that they are unjust to live.In their opinion, morality always evaluates things from a general perspective.Morality categorizes everything as "right" or "bad" and then uses "right" as a universal standard.People's demands for rights are frequently disguised as virtues, holiness, and selflessness by morality.

Moral indifference towards moral disenchantment
If any activity is considered as immoral indifference, moral indifference might easily lead to moral disenchantment.In the context of philosophy, disenchantment is largely an activity of self-reflection.Disenchantment signifies the absence of anything useful.Disenchantment as a philosophical practice is a form of moral discourse.Moral disenchantment clarifies the contemporary ethical perspective (Green, 2005).To understand moral disenchantment, the basis of moral charm must first be understood.Charm is an external factor that contributes to morality.Morality regulates people's conduct via standards, assessments, and orders based on societal demands.On the one hand, morality may promote one's own and society's development, and on the other, it can satisfy the social requirements of human life.
However, the understanding of moral rules by individuals requires a process of internalization.Moral internalization transforms external social norms into an individual's self-identity.The internalization of morality reflects the tension between individual needs and social expectations.Moral emotions play a crucial part in the internalization of morality.By internalizing external moral standards, moral emotions enable individuals to comprehend their social obligations.Individuals reflect on their rights and duties based on their internalization of societal responsibility.Individuals make moral decisions based on their reflection.As a habitual behavior, moral choice manifests as a stable state in the outward behavior of an individual.This stable state is transformable into moral conduct.As can be seen, moral behavior is different from general behavior.Moral behavior is a conscious and voluntary behavior that has been internalized by morality.
Consideration of interpersonal and interest interactions is the foundation of conscientious conduct.When personal interests conflict with those of society, people should be limited by moral restraints.However, this is not always the case.Whether people can abide by morality is related to the soundness of societal systems.The morality of a certain era is often marked by its time.Morality will adapt to institutional standards in the real world.In other words, institutions are external moral regulating mechanisms.Institutions can ensure the operation and development of morality in a healthy social setting.When the social system is imperfect, it prompts an increasing blurring of moral standards of judgment.Once moral standards become blurred, homogeneous results are easily formed.Homogeneous results lead to the reverse elimination of compliance with norms and low costs of violating institutional norms.In this situation, the fairness of moral standards is called into doubt, and the bystander effect grows.Morality gradually loses its charm in people's minds, ultimately evolving into the rejection of moral behavior by individuals.
Moral disenchantment removes morality from its idealized pedestal and returns it to secular life.Once morality loses its charm, the public nature of society is obliterated.In this situation, people's capacity for empathy gradually declines.Simultaneously, conscience is gradually extinguished by secularism due to a lack of positive feedback.Moral norms become externally imposed dogma because they are detached from the understanding of society members.The rise of the Internet has exacerbated the impact on mainstream thinking and, as a result, the decentering of morality.Based on their own cultural values, individuals reevaluate the culture of the time.However, this method of evaluation has resulted in some negative outcomes.It restructures the definition of "heroes" and "idols" and undermines the discourse power of managing hegemony.When morality loses its charm, the internal constraints on individuals gradually weaken.Additionally, moral requirements gradually diminish, that is, from behavioral motivations to behavioral outcomes.People no longer consider the state prior to and subsequent to behavior, but only the actual consequences of behavior.

Obligatory delineation of the boundaries of moral indifference
Before researching on the issue of moral indifference boundaries, the actor's obligations must be clearly defined.The individual's boundary of obligation refers to the extent to which the individual is responsible for others.The individual's obligation consists of both complete and incomplete obligations.The obligation of the individual to others belongs to the category of incomplete obligation.If incomplete obligations are coerced, it is easy to create a problem of moral blackmail.Therefore, it is necessary to clearly delineate the boundaries of obligation.

The problem of moral blackmail
When defining whether a moral agent is indifferent, one must evaluate the moral agent's obligation boundary.If an individual's obligations are not clearly defined, moral blackmail is likely to occur.Moral blackmail is essentially a logical fallacy.People who impose their morality on others strive to convince others to accept a particular perspective and associate it with moral values.If the other party refuses, they interpret this refusal as a moral error.This behavior is frequently unethical because it violates the free will and choice of others.A person may say, "If you do not support environmental protection, you do not care about the planet or its future development."This argument associates environmental protection with moral principles, implying that those who oppose environmental protection are morally deficient.
Nevertheless, this argument may overlook other factors that influence environmental decision-making, such as feasibility, economic impact, etc.Therefore, moral blackmail is ineffective as a solution to the issue.The proper strategy is to resolve disagreements through logical analysis while respecting each other's points of view.There are numerous types of moral blackmail in real life, such as a husband demanding his wife's loyalty when he lacks it.This demonstrates that moral rights and obligations are asymmetrical.For instance, compelling others to voluntarily give up their seats on a bus is a form of moral blackmail that demands unconditional moral concessions.Some types of moral blackmail involve the actor making unreasonable demands while requiring others to fulfill their moral obligations.
Moral blackmail is distinct from carrying out moral obligations.Fulfilling moral obligations is a voluntary action necessary for maintaining the basic order of society.In contrast, moral blackmail demands others to make "desire ethics "choices.This "desire ethics" is a voluntary action based on the kindness of the actor, which no one could interfere with.This "voluntary morality" is considered as the subject's free decision and is not influenced by outside interference or coercion.When an individual makes a moral choice in order to achieve a moral goal, they incur a moral obligation.Moral choice is a subject's self-determination within a specific context, which must be adapted to the environment.It is simple to develop an "absolute responsibility theory", if individuals disregard the reality of the environment and their own capacities.
Moral blackmail is unethical conduct.The intent is to achieve personal gain or to relieve oneself of responsibility.Those who engage in moral blackmail are frequently adept at providing "reasonable explanations" for their actions.They desire both practical advantages and an image of morality.This covert method of moral blackmail can satisfy this hypocritical mindset.Individual anxiety also contributes to the emergence of moral blackmail.Social inequality causes anxiety in individuals.Anxiety arises when values are undefined or indescribable, leading to indifference.When people disregard values altogether, they become desensitized.However, understanding that perfect societal equality is unattainable can bring peace to one's heart.Furthermore, recognizing individual inadequacies as the cause of social inequality lessens the burden of moral blackmail.

Complete obligation and incomplete obligation
The phenomenon of moral indifference can also be understood from the perspective of complete obligation and incomplete obligation.On a moral level, individuals have an obligation to fulfill their complete obligation, whereas they are free to choose incomplete obligations.Therefore, when making moral judgments about a subject, it is essential to clarify its obligations.Only by clarifying its obligations can one objectively determine if it should fulfill them.Kant viewed moral obligation as a rational means by which human subjectivity can experience the goodness (Arroyo, 2017).He believed that the concept of responsibility operates under "subjective limitations and obstacles" of good will.He suggested examining the act of "obligation" to determine the underlying principle of goodwill.
Kant elaborated on three types of motives for action: (1) an action may be done out of duty (doing the right thing because it is the right thing); (2) an action may be done out of direct inclination (taking action because one likes it); and (3) an action may be done out of indirect inclination (taking action because it is in one's best interest) (Korsgaard, 1989).Kant divided moral obligations into two categories based on this: (1) duties perfect and imperfect to oneself.These obligations are internal to the individual.(2) incomplete obligations to others.An individual fulfils perfect duties in order to promote their own good, and fulfills imperfect duties for the purpose of promoting their happiness.For instance, assisting others fall into the category of imperfect duties.Individuals cannot be compelled to fulfill their imperfect obligations to others.Furthermore, the moral and natural development of others cannot be compelled.Therefore, considering the phenomenon of moral indifference requires considering the boundaries of individual obligations.People must make moral judgments based on the distinction between obligations.
Under no circumstances should individuals violate their absolute obligations.Violating perfect obligations would be opposed to fundamental moral principles and could be harmful to oneself.However, imperfect obligations cannot be enforced in this manner.Imperfect obligations are those imposed by transcendental principles, like morality.The reason why imperfect obligations are not perfect is that the essential components of the obligation are unclear.Who, when, what, and how much should be performed for whom?For imperfect obligations, I am only required to contribute to the extent of my ability.This means that some individuals will not receive my assistance.Nonetheless, imperfect obligations involve the rights of others to a limited degree.In reality, individuals frequently choose to disregard or even violate incomplete obligations.
From the perspective of the moral normative system, the moral principles that regulate conflicts of interest between individuals can be categorised into two groups: the noble morality of self-sacrifice and altruism, and the just distribution of interests.Noble morality relates to imperfect obligation and therefore cannot be enforced, whereas baseline morality pertains to perfect obligation and must be enforced.At the same time, Kant divided obligations into ethical and legal obligations from the perspective of legal rights.Ethical obligations are imperfect obligations and therefore cannot be enforced.When it comes to the issue of how to fulfill these responsibilities, ethical obligations are situationally determined.From the perspective of Rawls, ethical obligations are rooted in the principles of justice, which can guide individuals in determining for whom and how they make decisions (Rawls, 1971).While legal obligations are required or prohibited and fall under the category of perfect obligation, it's important to note that legal obligations and ethical obligations are distinct.Specifically, legal obligations are formal obligations that derive from the intrinsic motivation to preserve equal external actions for all individuals.They are independent of an individual's particular objectives.On the other hand, ethical obligations can be viewed as tangible responsibilities that, in many cases, can advance particular objectives.

The criteria for judging the boundary of moral indifference
The criterion for clarifying the boundaries of moral indifference should be identified.Is moral indifference a moral decision made by individuals in response to moral events, a moral psychological behavior or a social phenomenon?Clarifying the limits of moral indifference exemplifies bottom-line thinking.Establishing awareness of boundaries is a true comprehension and objective presentation of moral events.Therefore, moral indifference can only be completely eliminated by establishing a reasonable limit for its occurrence.

Moral indifference is a type of moral judgement
From a non-moral perspective, moral judgement manifests as a particular attitude towards the object of evaluation (Svavarsdtti, 1999).Which attitudes should we adopt when our environment forces us to choose between several mutually exclusive courses of action (Tim, 1999)?In reality, moral judgments about other people, customs, or actions are the result of desires or emotions (Zangwill, 2008).However, morality is intrinsically associated with the category of ideology.The transformation of consciousness into behavior and the unification of knowledge and action are inherent requirements of morality.This unity is precisely regulated by moral judgement.The content of moral judgement includes, among other things, the evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of behavior, the evaluation of the moral qualities and values of individuals, and the examination of social policies (Malle, 2020).The central concept of moral cognition is moral judgement.Moral judgement evaluates the moral worth of behavior and encourages individuals to adhere to moral standards.Moral indifference is viewed as a type of moral judgement because it reflects the moral values of individuals or groups.In addition, it can reveal people's understanding and attitudes regarding moral responsibility and obligation.How do we make moral judgments about facts in daily life?What is the basis for judgement?For example, (1) A refused to assist the child who was drowning in the shallow water because he wanted to protect his newly purchased shoes.
(2) B saw a person drowning and wanted to help, but he was unable to swim, so he eventually left helpless.
(3) C earns more than 10,000 yuan per month.With a donation of only one thousand yuan, he could help children in impoverished areas overcome hunger.However, he purchased toys for his own children with that money.
An examination of the previously mentioned three scenarios is warranted.These three situations appear to have valid and justifiable explanations.Whether these are all examples of moral indifference requires further analysis.Here, they will be analyzed in detail.In situation 1, A did not act morally as he should have.It is possible that this had no impact on the quality of his life, but at the time he believed it would.Therefore, according to A, his behavior was acceptable.In situation 2, B is motivated subjectively to do good.However, reality and subjective intentions are not identical.Because B is unable to swim, his only option is to leave indifferently.If B could swim, he would choose to save the drowning child without hesitation.In this instance, B adhered to the principle of non-hostility.According to him, his action was also reasonable.Compared to a salary of 10000 yuan, 1000 yuan is insignificant in situations 3.However, C eventually stopped assisting others for the sake of his own child.If it is assumed that all individuals are self-centered, then actor C's motivations are also considered reasonable.Justifications for the actors' actions in these three situations have been identified.Based on this, the criteria for assessing moral indifference become especially important.In other words, the boundaries between moral and non-moral indifference need to be clarified.
In general, people believe that morality is objective, universal, and strict.However, moral judgments and decision-making processes can vary significantly across contexts (Bartels, 2015).In situations where clear obligations and conflicts exist, moral rules cannot form judgments.The "ought" of behavior results from the reason for action provided by a moral rule.However, in the majority of moral contexts, more than one moral rule applies.When an actor cannot satisfy multiple moral rules simultaneously, they may deviate from the moral "ought."From a cognitive standpoint, the boundary of moral indifference largely depends on the subject's moral judgement.

Moral indifference is a type of moral psychological behavior
Moral indifference is considered a moral psychological behavior because it involves the moral beliefs and actions of individuals (Tester, 2002).The issue of indifference does not involve the relationship between the insulter and the victim or the abuser.Indifferent individuals are aware that others are subjected to cruel treatment, but they rarely or never intervene.When personality deficiencies exist, a moral void develops.Care is the sole component of the moral interface that connects people.When caring for others, complete devotion to them and openness to their perspectives are exhibited.Those who do not demonstrate the same level of respect for others are considered "morally indifferent" (Miller, 1993).
Moral indifference is considered a moral psychological behavior because it involves the moral beliefs and actions of individuals.Indifference is the lack of concern shown by non-victims for the abuse, insult, and suffering endured by others.The problem of indifference is not a problem of the relationship between the abuser and the victim.Indifferent individuals are aware that others are subjected to cruel treatment, but they rarely or never intervene.When personality deficiencies exist, a moral void develops.Care is the sole component of the moral interface that connects people.To further comprehend moral indifference, it can be viewed from both cognitive and practical perspectives.Cognitively speaking, moral indifference is marked by an absence of a specific cognitive attitude.On a practical front, moral indifference alludes to a void in emotion or motivation (Lillehammer, 2017).These dual viewpoints collectively shed light on the reasons and consequences of people possibly harboring indifferent stances towards the pain and misfortunes of others.
Both behavior and psychology are credited with moral qualities in humans.Understanding a person's personality can facilitate comprehension of their conduct (Doris, 2002).Ethical behavior is independent of the will of the individual.Objective environment and subjective psychology have an impact on ethical behavior.The objective environment consists of the moral climate, moral situation, and the actor's physical and mental state.Moral cognition, values, emotions, and self-image are subjective psychological factors.These psychological factors involve the moral cognition, evaluation standards, and responses of individuals.Individuals develop attitudes and behaviors towards ethical issues as a result of the combined impact of these psychological factors.People who study the phenomenon of moral indifference investigate the psychological mechanism of morality to some extent.In reality, individuals tend to employ the psychological defense mechanism of overprotection.This psychological mechanism prevents numerous acts of righteousness.
The psychological processes corresponding to moral behavior can be divided into three categories based on the operational mechanism of moral behavior: moral psychological activation, moral psychological persistence, and moral psychological balance.Moral behavior requires moral psychological activation, which stimulates the behavioral subject's willingness and ability to act.For example, deciding whether to rescue a child struggling in a river is a moral decision based on a particular moral circumstance.In a particular moral context, I form a particular moral relationship with the child.Moreover, this relationship prompts me to develop a distinct moral psychology.Regardless of the subject's decision, it is a unique response to the moral situation based on various psychological influences.
However, the individual's ability to engage in moral behavior ultimately depends on the continuity of their moral psychology.Moral behavior is guaranteed by the durability of moral psychology.Whether moral psychology can be balanced is both a prerequisite and a key guarantee for its continued existence.Only when there is coordination between moral concepts and behavior can individuals maintain moral behavior more effectively.If there are contradictions between an individual's moral concepts and behavior, the sustainability of moral behavior will be compromised.

METHODOLOGY
This research using literature method by gather relevant literature on moral indifference and social development at home and abroad.Through careful research and consideration, a comprehensive understanding of the traits of moral development can be attained.This will focus on the specific manifestations of moral indifference among junior high school students from various perspectives, especially in light of current social realities.A summary and analysis of the relevant conclusions will be.
According to pertinent data and the prevailing situation, an analysis was conducted regarding the moral development level of junior high school students.Through an investigation into their moral behaviors, objective results were derived.From this analysis, correlations between moral development and internet usage among junior high school students were identified.Based on these findings, specific solutions and countermeasures are proposed.
To investigate the interplay between junior high school students' Internet usage and their moral development, a structured questionnaire was administered.This instrument aimed to capture a comprehensive understanding of their current ethical and moral stance.Subsequent to the questionnaire, in-depth interviews were conducted with educators from the respective schools of the respondents.This qualitative approach was leveraged to obtain a more nuanced understanding of the educators' perspectives on the students' moral development.The insights garnered from these interviews were transcribed, processed into textual data, and subjected to rigorous analytical procedures to discern emergent patterns and themes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Six hundred and fifty junior high school students from Xi'an's first through third grades as well as students from two Xianyang urban junior high schools were chosen to take part in this survey.Six hundred and fifty questionnaires were given out in total, and six hundred and thirty-four of those were returned after testing.Sixteen invalid questionnaires were eliminated after testing, leaving six hundred valid questionnaires, with an effective rate of 94.6%.

Valid questionnaires Efficiency
Questionnaire 650 634 600 94.6%As can be seen from the above table, the average value for the dimension of moral behavior is 3.5593, and the standard deviation is 0.73157, which is higher than the overall moral level of 3.5423, as shown in the table above.This indicates that junior high school students score highly on the dimension of moral behavior, indicating that junior high students are developing well in this dimension.Moral behavior at the lower end of the scale accounts for 26.7% of the sample, or more than a quarter of the sample.Value for the dimension of moral behavior is 3.5593, and the standard deviation is 0.73157, which is higher than the overall moral level of 3.5423, as shown in the table above.This indicates that junior high school students score  Note: Situation 1: I witness others in trouble and help them when I can Situation 2: I will help a friend get the right to be treated fairly when something unreasonable happens to them Situation 3: When helping a stranger, I do not consider the reactions of other bystanders to your actions Situation 4: I will take the initiative to stop others from harming the group and to protect the honor of the class Situation 5: When a friend talks to me about a problem, I do not change the subject to something else, I listen patiently.
The five questions of the Moral Behavior Dimension were analysed in terms of moral habits, moral responsibilities and moral obligations, and the choices were plotted in the above diagram to analyze the moral level of junior high school students in terms of the Moral Behavior Dimension.The study found that junior high school students' moral behavior was relatively good, with more than half of the survey respondents choosing "fairly consistent" and "fully consistent" for each of the five questions.
Situation 5 is an analysis of the moral habits dimension of moral behaviour, which is the way in which an individual behaves in a moral manner and reflects his or her moral level.In the question "When my friends talk to me about their problems, I listen carefully and do not change the subject to something else.One hundred and sixteen people, or 35.3% of the total, chose "very much not" and "partly not" and "not sure" for this question.This group of people does not know how to listen to others and does not have good moral habits.
Situation 1 and situation 4 were analyzed under the dimension of ethical behavior, where the question "We have a responsibility to help others when we witness them in difficulty, to the extent that we are able to do so" was asked.This question was answered by 112 people, or 37.3% of the total, who chose "very much not" and "partially not" and "not sure", indicating that this group of people is not fulfilling their responsibility to help others to the extent that they are able to do so.This indicates that this group of people are not doing their part to help others within their capacity.In Scenario 4, I would take the initiative to stop someone from harming the group and protect the honor of the class.In this question, 131 people (43.7% of the total) chose "very unlikely", "partially unlikely" and "not sure".This shows that this group of people do not act in the face of others' actions that undermine the community, lack moral courage and neglect their own moral responsibility.
Situations 2 and 3 were analyzed in relation to the moral obligation dimension of moral behavior, which is the moral responsibility of individuals towards others and society, and moral behavior is influenced by moral obligations.In Scenario 2, 98 people chose "strongly disagree", "partially disagree" and "not sure" for the question "I would help my friend to get fair treatment if something unreasonable happened to him".This indicates that this group of students is not fulfilling their moral obligations when their friends are treated unfairly.In Scenario 3, "When helping a stranger, you do not consider the reactions of other bystanders to your actions", 96 students chose "strongly disagree" and "partially disagree" and "not sure" for this question."This indicates that this group is vulnerable to the reactions of bystanders when it comes to their repeated moral obligation to help strangers.This suggests that this group is susceptible to bystander reactions to repeated moral obligations to help strangers, which can affect the occurrence of the moral act of giving assistance to strangers.

Moral indifference is a social phenomenon
Moral indifference is a social phenomenon that encompasses a pattern of behavior and an attitude throughout the entirety of society.The breakdown of social cohesion results in racial division, political crises, and a shift in national consciousness (Mironov, 2019).Moral indifference can also be seen as a flawed state or a subjective failure.In his view, indifference is situated among the forces that constitute us as subjects at any given moment (Hynes, 2016).
Moral indifference is a result of multiple factors, including social and cultural norms, economic foundations, and social structures.People's evaluations of moral indifference do not reflect the moral "reality" of society.People frequently make moral judgments based on society's moral "existence."Moral indifference reflects the contemporary problem of moral identity.Modernity drives the desire to control and utilize the world for the subject's benefit.As a result of its constant struggle with its own structure and content, it is difficult for people to predict the direction of desire.Therefore, social public life is threatened with extinction.
In the pursuit of goodness, the precariousness of social public life has caused individuals to lose the trait of "co-being" as human beings.In this circumstance, the pursuit of moral survival is abandoned.The breakdown of the social public life's value bond has resulted in the decline of public life itself.Individuals are now subject to social control due to this decline.The intensifying conflict between individualization and society weakens both public life and private life.Individualization and social control not only erode people's sense of civic responsibility, but also their humanity.Nevertheless, individual publicness is a demonstration of human nature.Without accessibility, human nature disintegrates.The disintegration of individual publicness deprives society of shared value objectives and moral pursuits.The decline of public life and shared social values.When individuals lose interest in the public sphere, they begin to concentrate on themselves.People choose to disregard the moral values of public life, resulting in moral indifference.
Contemporary social mechanisms perpetually generate numerous moral indifference phenomena (Zangwill, 2008).It appears that moral indifference is not only a philosophical problem, but also a widespread social phenomenon.As a point of reference, the phenomenon of moral indifference in contemporary society has a rich historical and cultural background.Social contradictions are the accumulation and superposition of social problems, such as the imbalance of social inequality.The relationship between myself and strangers constitutes the primary structure of modern society, particularly in a society of strangers.In contrast, strangers and I constitute the social whole with our faces.Due to the possibility that strangers may cause us discomfort, our disposition towards them appears to be more complicated.Strangers are either treated with friendliness or hostility.Unfriendliness is a manifestation of human nature's evil, whereas friendliness demonstrates human nature's goodness.

Reflection on the subject of the boundary of moral indifference
The boundary of moral indifference is a multifaceted concept that depends on numerous variables.In addition to the isolation between individuals, the transformation of the social economy, structure, and form also contributes to moral indifference.In light of society's high degree of complexity and unpredictability, a social security system must be established.By combining the efforts of social organizations, the general public, and managers, a society can be created that demonstrates concern for others, respect for individuals, and a commitment to fairness and justice.

Ethical crisis management: collaborative governance
Moral indifference is not a social contingency, but rather is rooted in our fundamental understanding of the world.On the path to a good life, human experience warn us of numerous social phenomena that present numerous obstacles.In actuality, historical and environmental factors have a growing impact on moral responsibility.In addition, the moral responsibility of a person is largely determined by factors other than their current intentions (Ciurria 2015).To comprehensively comprehend a person's moral responsibility, a variety of factors must be considered.It is also understood that spiritual life results from the interaction between objective external influences and subjective internal activities.Spiritual life is also the mental activity that manifests itself through the internalization of the spiritual fruits of society.Therefore, moral crises cannot be resolved solely through the improvement of individual quality.Dealing with moral crises necessitates the participation of all sectors of society.Social co-governance has diverse governance subjects and is a vast and unified social governance system (Huxham, 2000).The system of collaborative social governance is viewed as being composed of organizations with mutual working relationships.Moreover, collaborative governance can result in individuals' participation in consensus-oriented decision-making (Ansell, 2008).
From a participatory governance perspective, collaborative governance is a form of interaction (Newig, 2018).Government, non-governmental organizations, social organizations and individual members of society are the actors in collaborative governance.With the participation of these actors, collaborative governance can achieve functions of supervision and evaluation.Collaborative governance is characterized by authority, equality, and voluntarism in response to incidents.Collaborative governance demonstrates its benefits when addressing issues involving moral indifference.Planning, service, and monitoring all fall under the umbrella of collaborative governance and its internal mechanisms.In addressing social public problems, collaborative governance demonstrates its multi-center coordination efficiency advantage.The "multi-center" characteristic of collaborative governance can provide authoritative guidance for moral indifference governance issues.Collaborative gover-nance can issue timely directives and improve the effectiveness of crisis management.
Sharing has become the most effective order norm in the game equilibrium due to the emergence of diverse value subjects and cooperation.In the process of modern society's development, the public sphere presents itself in a state that is multi-pilot and expansive.Consequently, in dispersed spaces, the need for interest and responsibility sharing arises.This necessity links the subject and object forces to create a rule or mechanism.This mechanism operates collaboratively or cooperatively among multiple subjects according to the logic of social operation.This mechanism simultaneously maximizes benefits.Coordinating the relationship between different subjects is the essence of collaborative governance.The basic principles of collaborative governance include fair and civil discussion, open and inclusive communication, etc (Emerson, 2014).Collaboration is significant not only for maximizing individual interests, but also for maintaining order and equilibrium.Achieving mutual benefit is for the purpose of adhering to the rules of logic underlying mutual benefit.For example, using a collaborative approach can clarify the rights and responsibilities between the government and social organizations.
Participants in collaborative governance must adhere to the principles of honesty and fairness and respect their partners' rights and interests.This trust mechanism can increase moral awareness and decrease moral indifference among participants.Collaborative governance supervises the behavior of participants, and this monitoring mechanism can detect moral indifference in a timely manner.Collaborative governance can also promote participants' respect for laws and effectively curb their moral indifference.Social collaborative governance is a complex system consisting of governance objectives, governance targets, and governance mechanisms.It is both an open decision-making procedure and a goodwill alliance.It is essential to prevent moral indifference to ensure the fairness of collaborative governance.

The preservation of moral authority: contractual governance
"Less government, more governance" is a typical mode of governance for the new regulatory state.In this mode of governance, complex contracts are utilized (Crawford, 2003).The social contract is a legally binding agreement that governs collective life based on the highest ideals of the social spirit.In other words, the fundamental purpose of the social contract is to legitimize the state's authority in promoting goal attainment.In addition, the social contract can legitimize the interaction process and structure between the state and civil society (PİRİLİ, 2015).In terms of practical rationality, contractual governance is the best option for constructing the moral order of contemporary society.From the standpoint of historical materialism, the process of moral formation is intricately intertwined with numerous societal elements.Therefore, ethical relations and normative orders cannot be formed solely on the basis of morality.The concepts of sovereignty, freedom and justice constitute the rational logic of contemporary society.The construction of political systems, the maintenance of economic order, and the vast majority of other fields contain rational contract content.Integration of social contract forces into the system of social governance can provide robust and adaptable support in practice.
The social contract is an abstract concept and method of thought that helps us in comprehending how the world functions.Its purpose is to enable members of society to live better and safer lives collectively (Huntjens, 2021).In the public sphere, it is essential for social members to adhere to the social contract and actively participate in society.The contract can help individuals gain a new understanding of the relationship and content of the modern social moral order.The contract plays a positive role in fostering trust and cooperation, bolstering contract enforcement in contemporary government.Similarly, the establishment of a moral order cannot be separated from the construction of institutions.The generation of evil can be effectively suppressed by institutions' positive incentive effect.The institution's positive incentive effect is a result of its justice, which meets the requirements for maximizing its interests.If the institution is flawed, its positive incentive effect will disappear.Institutional imperfection refers to the institutional failure resulting from the system's own legitimacy.Normative conflict resulting from the coexistence of two systems is also an indication of system imperfection.Only by altering the institution's negative incentive can its authority be established.By regulating the system in accordance with the spirit of the contract, it is possible to demonstrate the legitimacy of the system.Contrary to moral standards, contracts are a type of legal standard.Contract enforcement is primarily dependent on the coercive power of contract law.When parties reach an agreement and sign a contract, both parties are legally bound by the terms of the agreement.This binding force can reduce moral indifference to some extent.Although social contracts are obligatory, individuals can be "compelled to be free."Where does such a statement's validity lie?In reality, the purpose of a contract, whether "statutory" or "agreed upon," is to allocate benefits according to principles acceptable to all parties.Any group that creates a vacuum will prioritize individual interests over the natural community's interests.Only by shifting things from "private interests" to "common interests" can a vacuum destroying the natural community be avoided (Jones, 2003).The social contract is precisely a union that serves the members' common interests.
The contract system is the result of an agreement, which can be considered reasonable by all parties involved (Gauthier, 1978).Contract theory embodies the deeply ingrained moral intuition that every individual possesses dignity.Contracts give us moral justifications for not sacrificing the interests of a small group of people for the greater good of society (Herzog, 2013).To persuade individuals to accept certain restrictions, it must be demonstrated that morality aligns with their best interests (Narveson, 2016).Only a contractual relationship based on shared interests can promote public will to establish moral standards.

Shaping Moral Community: Network Governance
The Internet has become a potent medium for guiding consciousness and disseminating ideas since its widespread adoption.In addition, the Internet is an important medium for upholding moral standards.It is capable of coordinating the actions of various actors, police departments, and regulatory scales (Marcussen, 2006).The Internet creates a "network public space" in virtual form, which constitutes a singular concept of modernity.Not only is the online space a virtual representation of the content of real-world social activities, but it is also the sublimation of real-world social values.However, moral principles and their operational mechanisms in the real world cannot fully adapt to this virtual space.In cyberspace, moral failure and moral crises are frequent occurrences.The Internet's characteristics, such as its broad geographic coverage and diverse participants encourage moral relativism.As a result, issues such as online moral indifference and distorted human nature have emerged.The online culture of the future must uphold online ethics and morality.In the context of the Internet, online ethical morality is a unique expression of traditional moral standards.
Network governance has become a dimension of social governance due to the governance function of network functions themselves.Network governance contributes to the development of contemporary social moral governance and moral order.Governance of a network can mitigate the issue of information overload and balance risks or corrupt behavior.In addition, the network can generate the required communication and control channels (Pirson, 2011).The primary impact of network governance is on decision-making and task assignment.Networks can determine the optimal way to manage group interests without jeopardizing the autonomy of relationships or individual initiatives (Assens, 2016).In the meantime, network technology can create a new "moral community.For the establishment of moral order in actual society, the network provides technical assistance and novel concepts.Network governance reflects the relevance of governance in terms of public issues.Problem-solving can be time-consuming as a result of the overlapping complexity of public issues.Therefore, network equipment and technology can be utilized to expedite information transmission and feedback.
Citizens and social organizations participate in network governance to aid individuals in decision-making and policy planning (Maturo, 2004).There is a relatively independent yet interdependent relationship between network participants as a whole.Participation in the network is voluntary, and participants are free to leave at any time.Moreover, because participants are interdependent, no one can use their power to impose hierarchical restrictions on others (Sørensen, 2016).Participatory methods for public administration are utilized by networks, primarily through discourse expression.Free expression promotes the formation of value consensus in the online environment.
Simultaneously, moral rules are generated based on moral consensus.When this demand becomes a public necessity, rules are established naturally.Its role in constructing the ethical order as a technical vehicle is reflected in the construction of the public discourse order.In the online environment, participants form a coalition regardless of their geographic or social identities.The participants will also participate in an equal and unrestricted manner, forming a contractually based order for public discourse.As a result, the maximum interests of participants are protected, and the public participation order is carried out.Simultaneously, the discursive power of network participants is authoritative and quickly becomes the prevailing public opinion.Participation in a network creates a new type of moral community, which in turn regulates social norms.
Utilizing its distinctive technological mechanisms, the internet has engendered an ethical paradigm that advocates for virtuous conduct and censures malevolent actions.Internet governance should be capable of preserving online justice.Internet governance must simultaneously address the alienation and indifference caused by the internet in real society.This necessitates the regulation of the Internet management system to promote the Internet's ecology and security.In contrast to market governance, the Internet is capable of forming flexible alliances centered on events in response to problems.Internet governance can therefore achieve equality in the virtual space dimension that cannot be achieved in real society.In addition, because of the Internet's unique technological composition, it can establish a new "moral community".

CONCLUSION
If conscious responsibility avoidance represents incomplete moral indifference, then unconscious moral numbness represents total moral indifference.
To address the issue of moral indifference, it is necessary to establish a sense of the subject's boundaries.This sense of boundaries includes defining the subject's obligation boundaries and avoiding the erroneous beliefs that lead to moral indifference.The phenomenon of moral indifference contributes to the definition of morality's form.This definition does not reduce morality to a concept that is illusory or marginalizes it as nonexistent.It is necessary to consider the issue of the limits of moral indifference.Only by establishing moral indifference's boundaries can morality become a regulated and valuable entity.Individuals can simultaneously comprehend their level of responsibility for others and the extent to which norms and morality are intertwined.Establishing an awareness of the limits of moral indifference is an initial overview of human development from the subject's inner consciousness level.Additionally, the definition of limits elevates the study of morality to the level of cultural philosophy.
In essence, moral indifference is the negation of humanity and the self.Human nature possesses social characteristics; therefore, people are social beings with social characteristics.Human characteristics are the outward manifestation of social existence and the consequence of social action.Moral indifference specifically denies the social characteristics of humans and distorts their metaphysical relationship.The dissolution of moral indifference is therefore the affirmation of human nature, the reshaping of value, and the return of the self.Negative moral indifference is another value pursuit on which individuals and society must collaborate.

Table 1
Questionnaire distribution and return statistics

Table 5
Proportion of people in the four levels of the ethical behavior dimension

Table 6
Statistical chart of the selection of questions on the moral behavior dimension