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

"One is innocent until proven guilty." Resolved: Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable. This resolution states that when a person is inactive during an event of injustice, they are morally guilty, and it is my opponent's job to prove this statement as true. Now, proving this statement as objective truth is perhaps impossible because not every person agrees what is moral or what is unjust. Consider the events of the Tiananmen Square protests, where the Chinese Government killed student protesters. To the Chinese government, the killings were both moral and just because the student protesters were breaking the law and threatening order in China, while to the student protesters the killings were immoral and unjust because the government executed them and their friends, violating their right to life. Since both sides see their own actions as right, and the other side's actions as right, the resolution should be applied to how each individual views what is moral and what is unjust. This, however, arises another problem, an individual's morality is subject to change at any moment, and may believe in multiple competing moralities. Consider a Chinese citizen during the Tinanmen Square protests who believes that the student protesters are moral and just while the government's actions of executing students are immoral and unjust. According to the resolution, the person would be morally culpable if s/he did not act against the Chinese Government when they were executing students, even though acting against the Chinese Government would make the person a criminal and most likely executed. If the person who is executed is a parent then they could not care for their children, if the person is a student then they could not improve the life of themselves or their family and contribute to society in the future, because they'd be dead. A person should not be held morally culpable if action against injustice threatens the lives of themselves and their loved ones. Consider another Chinese citizen during the Tinanmen Square protests who believes that the Chinese government is moral and just in its actions against the immoral and unjust student protesters. According to the resolution, this person would be morally culpable if s/he did not act with the Chinese government by joining or helping the PLA Ground Force or the People's Armed Police. By joining, the individual would be an enforcer of the law, and thus be subject to the government's orders, including executing student protesters. But what if the person could not bring himself to kill another human being, even if he agrees with the killing of the students protesters for the sake of preserving order and upholding the law? A person should not be held morally culpable if action requires killing another person, especially if it involves killing multiple people. Consider a third Chinese citizen during the Tinanmen Square protests who believes that the Chinese government and the student protesters are both equally immoral and unjust. In this case, the only moral option is inaction, because action in favor of any side would be immoral and unjust. If inaction is the only moral choice in the face of two equal injustices , then an individual cannot be morally culpable for inaction. "A 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." -Pro This resolution states that inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable, meaning in that in every instance of injustice that an individual can act upon it is their moral responsibility to act, and if they do not act they are morally guilty, even if they reason that their action will most likely result in more injustice or a worse injustice. Consider a bank robbery where the bank robber has an AK-47 in a bank full of people, with one person carrying a pistol. That person can use the pistol to stop the injustice of robbery, but using the pistol also risks the lives of everyone in the bank. According to the resolution, the person would be morally culpable for not acting against the injustice, even if acting against it would most likely result in a worse injustice. Pro's statement also assumes that a person views the harm committed as an injustice, if a harm is being committed on a dangerous criminal by law enforcement, a person should not be held morally culpable for not doing anything because the criminal is being punished for a crime, and helping the criminal is illegal and will lead to harm upon you. Neither should a person be held morally culpable for inaction against an autocratic government, even if given the opportunity to act against it, because all dissent is brutally executed and imprisoned, thus it is better to do nothing for the sake of themselves and their loved ones, and action against an autocratic government may result in a worse government being in place, which has happened in revolutions throughout history in Russia, China, and Cuba. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...