It's a Simple Question: What Would You Do?

I have a few questions I would like to pose. In a hypothetical situation — let's say you find out the lady next door is getting beaten periodically by her husband. In a situation like that, what do your ethics and beliefs suggest you should do? 

Next question: In the same situation, what will you do? Will you put in a call to the authorities, call 911, or will you go over, knock on the door, and warn the husband that you are aware of what he is doing and will report him? 

Now, let's suppose the abuser was a bit closer to home. Imagine, for a moment, that a relative of yours, who you care about, is engaged in illegal activities that are hurting others. Will you turn a blind eye because you are related to him ... because he is "family?" What do your beliefs and ethical principles suggest is correct action? Will you speak up to the person? Will you call authorities? Will you intervene?

Imagine one more thing. What if it came to your attention that your own government, or someone in it, was doing something illegal, was following a policy that hurt others severely, that what they were doing was morally indefensible and that it was an ongoing part of policy, spanning many administrations? 

To my mind there is no difference between these questions. The answers, in my opinion, should be the same. When we become aware of a specific injustice, be it between family members, neighbors, people in our town, or between our country and others, to fail to try to do something, when there are effective measures we can take, is to tacitly support those actions. 

The first objection I imagine raised is that there are too many injustices to begin to address, should we begin to do so or feel compelled by our morals or beliefs to take some action. I think personally that using this point to let oneself off the hook of doing anything ... is tragic. Surely no one of us can single-handedly right the wrongs in this planet, but collectively we can change the world for the better. Billions of actions pro-justice would make change. 

The second objection may be that we are meddling. Let's just take care of our own country or town or family ... and let the rest fend for themselves. That idea might have worked hundreds of years ago ... but it's way too late to imagine that we exist within the borders drawn on maps.  The fact is we do meddle with other countries. We go to great lengths to influence them to follow our will — the will of the administration and corporations. We buy them, we loan them money until they are inextricably ensnared in debt, and then we dicate their policies for them. We are meddling in their affairs all over the planet. So the question is, do we want to interact in a positive way or in a controlling selfish fashion?

I want to know who people think their "brother," or "sister," or "neighbor" is on this planet? Whoever they are, we are, according to most of the great teachings of the world, to "Do unto them as we would have them do unto us."

Does that mean we help them or destroy them? Do we defend them or do we ignore them? Where is the religious community on these questions? What are your opinions?