Life is full of moral dilemmas that people have to grapple with. One of those is whether remaining silent in the face of injustice signals complicity or proves to be a practical choice. The following essay will delve into both viewpoints before justifying my agreement with the former notion.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that silence implies approval, which allows malicious forces to perpetuate. This perfectly aligns with the definition of complicity, which basically means to facilitate the occurrence of a crime. On an individual level, such silence indicates one’s indifference and compromised ethical values. On a societal scale, silence can enable moral corruption to run unchecked, exerting adverse bearings on human lives. Racial segregation in the US in 20th century best exemplified these consequences. That black people were forced to become slaves and deprived of fundamental human rights was not only the product of a white-supremacist-dominated government but also the result of numerous apathetic American citizens who turned a blind eye to racism.
On the other hand, people sometimes do not speak out against injustice because of practical reasons. In authoritarian regimes, voicing disapproval against the state’s cruelty can put one’s life in jeopardy. For instance, during the Holocaust in Germany, those who vocally opposed the mass genocide of Jews were brutally executed by the government. In this case, staying silent could be a practical choice for self-preservation. Furthermore, not raising one’s voice against injustice does not necessarily mean inaction, but may instead mean people are waiting for the opportune moment to take action. Whistleblowers, for example, may delay exposing the fraud of the authorities until they have gathered sufficient evidence.
In my opinion, while failing to criticize legal and moral inequality may be attributed to practical factors, this should not be used as an excuse for one’s apathy and immorality. Choosing to remain silent when confronted with injustice, while being necessary for self-protection, is in fat of temporary benefit. In the long run, they can become the next victims of the injustice they fail to condemn, as evidenced by the successive oppression of different groups of people in the past, including the homosexual, black people, and women. Having said that, it is advisable to be strategic in exposing moral depravity, such as by taking collective action instead of individual one.
In conclusion, while silence may be a practical choice, I am convinced that it is an act of complicity. Moving forward, it is imperative to stand up against the rampant injustice to contribute to a better, fairer society.