Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke Introductory Analysis I'm going to assume that my opponent believes a person's actions would make an individual morally culpable. An action is the process or state of carrying out an activity. The reason a person is responsible for their actions is because all actions have consequences, which describes results that stem directly from the person's behavior. By this logic, one is also responsible for their inaction. Inaction likewise has consequences - meaning results that stem directly from the person's behavior. Whether the behavior is active or passive, a consequence will arise from whatever actions are being carried out. Ignoring injustice is a willful behavior. It is passive, but describes the way in which a person intentionally conducts oneself toward others. In this discussion, I'll be arguing that purposeful inaction constitutes an action in itself. It describes the way one acts or reacts, meaning it describes purposeful behavior that has consequences. If people are responsible for the consequences of their behavior, then this logic applies to both action and inaction. Moral & Legal Standards To what extent can you stand by and watch horror before you are complicit/punishable? While the law is not an absolute basis for morality, these questions on injustice have arisen in the justice system. Under the law, an omission is a failure to act, which generally attracts different legal consequences from positive conduct. Vicarious liability describes the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. For example, parents can be held liable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as a handgun outside the reach of their children [1]. Here we can see that the law holds certain third parties accountable, even if they were not present or had no direct knowledge of the incident. The Nuremberg trials established that persons cannot use the defense that they were only following orders of their superiors, but also that superiors who ordered or "should have known" of such violations, yet failed to intervene, are also criminally liable. So superiors, like parents, are considered to be in a position to act in such a way that interferes with an injustice. Failure to act (inaction) is a behavior with consequences, and we've already established that people are responsible for the consequences of their behavior. Of course the level of culpability may vary. The law also recognizes a "duty of care" clause. Duty of care may be considered a formalization of the social contract, which is what we call the implicit responsibilities held by individuals toward others within society [2]. Thomas Hobbes argued that in a civil society, a social contract provides all members of the community with a security gain, and in return they are responsible for subjecting themselves to an absolute Sovereign or collective set of guidelines. These guidelines look to provide general security and make all members of the community responsible for establishing that end. Society is comprised of a group of individuals. If many or all individuals ignore an injustice for which they are not directly responsible, the society as a whole would not protect justice and righteousness overall. We are responsible for reaction. For instance if someone committed a murder, society has a responsibility to investigate and prosecute the crime in addition to leveraging punishment. If we alleviate ourselves from the responsibility or reaction to that injustice -- even if we are not directly related to it -- we are left without any basis for a legal or moral system at all. ConclusionA cause = person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon or condition. In a situation where one knows that their inaction is likely to permit/contribute/exacerbate a harm, and where one knows that their action would mitigate or prevent the harm, they are necessarily a cause (person/thing that gives rise to a condition) of the harm. There must be some reasonable limit to our duty of care, and the question is where to set that limit. It is perfectly reasonable to set the limit as such: inaction in the face of injustice -- that is inaction when presented with an injustice where one's behavior could directly alter the outcome to prevent an injustice -- makes an individual morally culpable. References[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...