Is not speaking out against an injustice the same as committing it?

[spanky4ever]

ha ha @evilchear USA are pushing to be alone, I agree, but that was not what I was hinting at
Alone is not good - being alone and hurting while ppl just walk away is not the same.
Supporting a wanna-be dictator (supporting; if you dont speak out you are counted as a supporter along "the bystander effect") is an act of: you tell me

[fightinfrenchman]

ha ha @evilchear USA are pushing to be alone, I agree, but that was not what I was hinting at
Alone is not good - being alone and hurting while ppl just walk away is not the same.
Supporting a wanna-be dictator (supporting; if you dont speak out you are counted as a supporter along "the bystander effect") is an act of: you tell me

Ye there may even be a member of ESOC staff who is the equivalent of Trump (aka evil)

[spanky4ever]

I have no Ideal of whom your hinting to there @fightinfrenchman

[Laurence Drake]

ha ha @evilchear USA are pushing to be alone, I agree, but that was not what I was hinting at
Alone is not good - being alone and hurting while ppl just walk away is not the same.
Supporting a wanna-be dictator (supporting; if you dont speak out you are counted as a supporter along "the bystander effect") is an act of: you tell me

Ye there may even be a member of ESOC staff who is the equivalent of Trump (aka evil)

I would like to offer my subtle agreement.

[spanky4ever]

ha ha @evilchear USA are pushing to be alone, I agree, but that was not what I was hinting at
Alone is not good - being alone and hurting while ppl just walk away is not the same.
Supporting a wanna-be dictator (supporting; if you dont speak out you are counted as a supporter along "the bystander effect") is an act of: you tell me

Ye there may even be a member of ESOC staff who is the equivalent of Trump (aka evil)

I would like to offer my subtle agreement.

speak out - or be forever silenced

[spanky4ever]

guess you could be hinting to H20 - but Imo he pretty much kept AOE alive - so I will not support that smear

[fightinfrenchman]

guess you could be hinting to H20 - but Imo he pretty much kept AOE alive - so I will not support that smear

Not H2O, the staff member who has made comments towards me and a fellow basement member that are simply illegal!

[spanky4ever]

Im pretty sure Im happy to not knowing

[fightinfrenchman]

:grin: Im pretty sure Im happy to not knowing

If I say his name I may get banned/killed so

[spanky4ever]

nah - I dont believe that

[Laurence Drake]

Last time I said his name and they put me away for a whole day

[fightinfrenchman]

nah - I dont believe that

Well I wish I could be as naive as you!

[spanky4ever]

send me a PM then of that scary name! And I will support you - not stand around and let you have it

[spanky4ever]

FACT is that you have an insane person as president in USA - this should be the time to speak out
He is the biggest bully of them all!

[fightinfrenchman]

FACT is that you have an insane person as president in USA - this should be the time to speak out
He is the biggest bully of them all!

Ye I have monthly donations to ACLU and Planned Parenthood

[Laurence Drake]

I don't want to spend another day in the sex dungeon ;_;

[deleted_user0]

Great way to ruin a thread tbh =_=

[deleted_user]

Great way to ruin a thread tbh =_=

Well then, let's revive it!

inb4 a million thought experiments

Doesn't this boil down into a consequentialism vs deontology and then maybe virtue ethics arguement? Where the foremost claims that the consequence(s) (or lack there of) of your decision(s) in any given situation is the basis for judgement whereas in deontology it is argued that a particular act, in and of itself, holds the basis for judgment. Of course there are several theories under each of those categories.

I think in both trains of thought, the conclusion will usually side with speaking out. Grey areas emerge when your own personal safety is at risk and when your voice accomplishes nothing or if it causes greater unrest. In this way, I find difficulty translating consequentialist theory into the practices of the real world as consequences cannot be realistically known with 100% accuracy, there is difficulty in knowing how large the population that is being affected is, and there is no possible way to compare the "actual" consequence with "what might have been." A popular consequentialist theory, utilitarianism, also suffers greatly from subjective assumptions, as well. In this way, deontology and Kant's very famous Categorical Imperative become more enticing.

In this, Kant firstly states, "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]." Additionally, he goes on to name a second and third formulation which lie the groundwork for the Categorical Imperative.

Now we note that Kant concludes there are such things as "perfect" and "imperfect" duties, in which acts under the first formulation can be divided into. While both require no contradiction in the supposed will of universal law of a maxim, and while both are based on reason, Kant argues that acts that rely upon the subjective nature of humanity, in how desires are carried out in practice, are still morally binding but less so than perfect duties, such that no blame would come to the person who does not complete an imperfect duty, but praise would be given if they did. These duties are circumstantial in that one could not exist in a constant state of performing that duty. An example is the cultivation of one's talents.

Then there are perfect duties, those which are blame worthy if not meant and are the basics requirements for moral obligation.

Finally, assuming we accept all this, we ask ourselves whether OP's original question is a perfect or imperfect duty. Kant himself claimed that telling the truth was a perfect duty, and must always be upheld. And indeed, if we suppose a permutation of nature in which the outing of injustice is natural law, we find no contradiction. Therefore, we must conclude that one must speak out against an injustice.

But I just realized that the question is actually whether or not speaking out against an injustice is the same as committing it? I guess we should ask whether certain actions hold more moral worth than others, and intuitively, they do, since shoplifting some gum is surely not equivocal to the murder of man. I suppose Kant never separated duties into weight, but merely whether an action was moral or immoral, and upon determining which, the moral road must be taken, such that this question would be meaningless as the person should always speak out against injustice.

Alternatively, we might accept that various actions hold various moral weight to them, as evidenced by the apparent difference between stealing gum and murder, and as such, simply knowing an injustice is occurring but not speaking out against it is of lesser weight than actively committing such injustice, but still the person is under moral obligation to do so, though under less moral scrutiny if they do not compared to the actual enactor of injustice.

I basically just poorly paraphrased a bunch of wikipedia articles I didn't fully understand.

[deleted_user0]

I'll come back to this thread later when I have some more time

[spanky4ever]

Great way to ruin a thread tbh =_=

Obs sorry @deleted_user -