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

[fightinfrenchman]

There is an interesting argument to be had that someone who does not speak out against a crime or injustice is just as responsible as those who commit them/endorse them. For example, if you were part of a leadership/government structure that included someone who committed a heinous crime, and you did not publicly speak out against that individual, are you just as responsible for what they did?

I'm not sure if it is 100% the same but I do think someone who does not speak out (publicly) shares some of the responsibility, and thus they are essentially saying it is okay to commit whatever that crime is.

Personally, if I were a member of that group, I would be ashamed to have that criminal as part of the same group as me, and would lobby to get him or her removed immediately.

What do you all think?

[Ashvin]

I think complaining should be done when you have problem with something. Moreover, complain to whom, when, and where are the key elements before complaining about anyone. I think one should look for a perfect time to strike and not randomly.

[JakeyBoyTH]

Im pretty sure that you are not just as responsible, but you would be convicted of being an accomplice if you do not speak out because you are effectively hiding them.
Of course the ethical thing is to speak out and try and get justice for the victim.

[fightinfrenchman]

Im pretty sure that you are not just as responsible, but you would be convicted of being an accomplice if you do not speak out because you are effectively hiding them.
Of course the ethical thing is to speak out and try and get justice for the victim.

Ye I would agree with that. Not the same level of evil but your complacency certainly allows evil to prosper.

[Ashvin]

Of course the ethical thing is to speak out and try and get justice for the victim.

I think people above average level of ethics do that.

[Jam]

Silence isn't consent, but it smells like it.

[Laurence Drake]

no. when you commit an injustice you are morally responsible; when you fail to prevent one, you are not.

[pecelot]

You could argue all Founding Fathers supported slavery and were ultimately morally bad. Janusz Korczak, the most known Polish pedagogue, allegedly offered euthanasia services under the Nazi occupation in a Jewish ghetto for young children so that they wouldn't experience all that bestiality. If we were to apply modern measures to such a case, the verdict would obviously be negative. I think, though, that we have to include circumstances of that time and the attitude of Korczak to fully understand his struggles. Although some truths are certainly objective and are binding everywhere at any time, some I would call rather relative, given the histry background and real positions of rated individuals.

[fightinfrenchman]

You could argue all Founding Fathers supported slavery and were ultimately morally bad. Janusz Korczak, the most known Polish pedagogue, allegedly offered euthanasia services under the Nazi occupation in a Jewish ghetto for young children so that they wouldn't experience all that bestiality. If we were to apply modern measures to such a case, the verdict would obviously be negative. I think, though, that we have to include circumstances of that time and the attitude of Korczak to fully understand his struggles. Although some truths are certainly objective and are binding everywhere at any time, some I would call rather relative, given the histry background and real positions of rated individuals.

But what about in the present, where there are certain moral guidelines that most agree should be followed?

[pecelot]

It still depends, I guess

[deleted_user0]

You aren't directly responsible, as drake pointed out, but you do share some responsibility for your fellow citizens. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it's easy to talk in hindsight and it makes no difference between ordinary and extraordinary situations. The way it works generally is a bit like this, if you see someone drown and it's reasonable to assume that you you were in a position to help that person without risking your life, then you are guilty of neglect if you let that person drown. However, if saving that person requires risking your own life, you can't be reasonably obliged to do so.

Ofcourse sdrowning is quite straightforward in a way that most political situations are not, specially since what most regimes, who end up on the dark pages of history, is to distort the truth so people don't know what's happening for certain and ofcourse they decide the population with for or against us rethorics which often makes it hard for resistance to group together before they are forcefully or otherwise broken up.

Still the same thing kinda applies, if you are mortally in danger when you resist, you Cannot be reasonably obliged to do so

One other issue I personally have, atleast when it comes to more minor injustices, is that it's not always clear if speaking up on someone else's behalf is appreaciated by that person and at times it may simply worsen things. Ideally you would ask permission to that person to intervene before you do. Obviously this doesn't really concern things such as rape, but it does apply for most verbal conflicts and even some physical ones. In the end you are responsible to take care of yourself and you can't and shouldn't rely too much on others for your own well being and emancipation

[dietschlander]

Below situation is kinda off topic but pls allow me:

I'm pretty sure my neighbour, who strangely rented a second house in our town, has set up a weed-farm nextdoor.
The guy has a decent weed-farming history. I like the guy and it's not hurting me... but what if fire breaks out?

Should I anonymous inform police? I'm sure he'll be jailed... leaving wife + 2 kids in trouble behind...

[Goodspeed]

The answer to the question who is reponsible for an action in my view is only about who or what did the action, not who endorsed or condoned it. If 10 people watched a murder happen and they all could've prevented it, none of them are responsible for the murder, not even partly. What they are responsible for is not preventing it. Even if they all encouraged the murderer, they are still not responsible for the murder in any way. Only for encouraging it which is not the same thing.

Silence isn't consent, but it smells like it.

Indeed. But does consenting to an action make one responsible for that action?

[deleted_user0]

The answer to the question who is reponsible for an action in my view is only about who or what did the action, not who endorsed or condoned it. If 10 people watched a murder happen and they all could've prevented it, none of them are responsible for the murder, not even partly. What they are responsible for is not preventing it. Even if they all encouraged the murderer, they are still not responsible for the murder in any way. Only for encouraging it which is not the same thing.

Silence isn't consent, but it smells like it.

Indeed. But does consenting to an action make one responsible for that action?

That's only Dutch law I think actually, and that aspect of it is quite weird. IMO if 10 people watch a murder which they could have prevented without risking their life, they might be complicit for sure. Or atleast guilty of negligence. But it all depends on the circumstances, as always in law. They are not so much guilty because they are responsible for the actions of the other person, but we all carry a minimum responsibility to take care of each other and failing to live up to this, means neglecting your duty to your fellow citizen. I agree though, it's nowhere near as severe as actually committing the act of murder or whatever.

As for the second part, it kinda depends whether or not your consent was a decisive factor in the action happening as it did, although that's hard to proof. However, it's hard to imagine hitler to have done what he did without consent of others, or even more importantly, others to have done what they did without the consent and authorithy of hitler (without actually getting express orders, which is another matter)

[spanky4ever]

Imo ppl in the USA should speak out loudly about the fascist they have in the white house now!

[Laurence Drake]

B A S H - T H E - F A S H !

[spanky4ever]

Trump want to; Silence the press, silence the opposition, ridicule lawyers that oppose him, be cozy to Russia and Turkey (who also look more and more like dictatorships) - next; use police and military to hammer down on protesters!!!!
If you do not protest about fascist takeover, be forever silence

Btw the red scare of DNC was maybe worse

[Goodspeed]

That's only Dutch law I think actually, and that aspect of it is quite weird.

I wasn't talking about law. Responsibility as a concept isn't necessarily tied to law.

IMO if 10 people watch a murder which they could have prevented without risking their life, they might be complicit for sure. Or atleast guilty of negligence.

Imo not complicit, but definitely guilty of negligence.

As for the second part, it kinda depends whether or not your consent was a decisive factor in the action happening as it did,

In my view even if that is the case you are still not in any way responsible for the action, at most you are responsible for not preventing it. There are a lot of things happening in the world that are outside my scope of influence and which I am okay with happening, vocally or no, but I am in no way responsible for any of them. Note I'm not talking about "bad" things there.

[fightinfrenchman]

Trump want to; Silence the press, silence the opposition, ridicule lawyers that oppose him, be cozy to Russia and Turkey (who also look more and more like dictatorships) - next; use police and military to hammer down on protesters!!!!
If you do not protest about fascist takeover, be forever silence

Ye Trump is bad although that isn't what this topic was about

[spanky4ever]

@fightinfrenchman maybe so, but the topic was about raising your voice about injustice - sooo I think this government (yours) are doing injustice about ppl from Muslim countries they dont like! how about including Saudi Arabia in that ban? Then I could maybe understand it - a little!? Imo Saudi Ariabia is the root of the ideology that are the root cause to radical Muslim terrorism - AND USA are still very cozy with those bad bois in white dresses!

[fightinfrenchman]

@fightinfrenchman maybe so, but the topic was about raising your voice about injustice - sooo I think this government (yours) are doing injustice about ppl from Muslim countries they dont like! how about including Saudi Arabia in that ban? Then I could maybe understand it - a little!? Imo Saudi Ariabia is the root of the ideology that are the root cause to radical Muslim terrorism - AND USA are still very cozy with those bad bois in white dresses!

Don't blame me I voted for Hillary!

[Laurence Drake]

When will people realise that we need to beat the fascists before the fascists beat us?

[evilcheadar]

We need that wall built

[spanky4ever]

Did you know that the more ppl surrounding you, when you are being attacked, the less chance you have to receive any help? Its called "the bystander effect!
https://youtu.be/OSsPfbup0ac

[evilcheadar]

Did you know that the more ppl surrounding you, when you are being attacked, the less chance you have to receive any help? Its called "the bystander effect!
https://youtu.be/OSsPfbup0ac

Wall makes us more alone looking, sounds good