Does doing nothing make you complicit?

[sqbr]

A question that has come up in two comments I've been pondering my reply to ¹ and on which I think I may actually have a really basic ethical difference about:

Lets assume a certain act is "bad" under your ethical code. It's hurtful, unethical, immoral, etc. If you did it yourself you would be being immoral/unethical.

If there is something bad going on, and you're aware of it, and you could (try to) stop it, and you don't, are you complicit in that bad act? Are you being somewhat immoral/unethical?

Because I say yes. Inaction is itself an action. It's not the same as doing the "bad" act yourself, but it's not completely different either.

To go back to the Bible², everyone but the Good Samaritan was complicit in the suffering of the victim.
See also First they came....

In the context of social justice, if you live in an unjust society (and unless you're reading this in some distant perfect future³, you are) and you do nothing to work against that, you are complicit in that injustice. Which means you have to work hard just to stay still, so to speak, which is horribly unfair but it's just another side effect of the broader unfairness of the social injustice.

Which is not to say that doing nothing makes you a bad person, life is hard and there's only so much you can do. But nor is it inherently better than doing actively bad things, and in some cases it may be worse (the same way that bad medical assistance is often, but not always, better than none).

To give an example: one of the Big Things in RaceFail09 was white authors saying "Well, if I write POC characters they will probably end up being a bit racist even if I try my best. So the least racist⁴ thing to do is to only write white characters!" (See Talking About (And To) David Levine)

But the active racism of a mildly racist depiction is probably better than the passive racism of following the all-or-mostly-white-characters status quo (where to draw the line is a matter of opinion)⁵. And there is NO WAY not to be a bit racist in whatever you do. Which sucks, but hey.

So, do people agree? Or do you not see inaction as just another form of action, subject the same moral/ethical rules (whatever they are, depending on your own POV) as, uh, active action? (You can tell I never studied philosophy, there's probably proper jargon for this stuff) Is there some hole in my argument or description?

1)It's quite possible you weren't arguing this anyway, and I do intend on writing individual replies. But now I can leave out a chunk of my argument and maybe stay under the comment length limit :)
2)I may not be christian, but I think Jesus was pretty good with the educational metaphorical story. See also... :)
3)In which case, hi from the past, hypothetical future person!
4)Where by "racist" I mean "acting in a way to support society wide racial prejudice", not "Actively and consciously discriminating against people based on race".
5) Which is better for an individual story on aesthetic grounds being of course a totally different question.

Comments

[stableglynn.livejournal.com]

Not only do I agree, but questioning why God was exempt from this was actually the original reason I stopped being Christian. I do think crippling yourself out of fear of being racist is a little bit silly, if you were truly not-racist then surely whether your characters were black or white would depend on the story you were telling. Sticking a token character of any sort in is just making life difficult for your narrative, and possibly being insulting.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

I agree more or less, but avoid judging people on their inaction as you rarely can see the full picture: A person may walk passed a kid getting attacking by a gang and do nothing but they:
-may have considered the odds so far against them that they wouldn't have been able to help whatsoever
-have a serious heart condition that would put them at huge risk if they got worked up
-have somewhere genuinely more important to get to fast etc.
9 times in 10 inaction has no such excuse, but you can't persecute somebody unless you are really sure. Then there is also weighing up the pros and cons of acting in a situation, which is somewhat subjective, and the other person may come to a different conclusion to you, even if you do know all the facts, and not necessarily be 'wrong' for their differing opinion.

As to the writing-about-POC thing, I think if I was an author and concerned about race and how many POC to include and if I could write about them fairly, I would just not mention the race of at least a good number of my characters... it's not exactly a relevant feature in the majority of stories, and if it is a relevant feature it should be pretty clear to the author whether or not they should include them.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

If there is something bad going on, and you're aware of it, and you could (try to) stop it, and you don't, are you complicit in that bad act? Are you being somewhat immoral/unethical?

The crunch has to be in that 'could'. How do you define 'could'? 'Could' as in if you set aside all your other priorities and devoted time and energy to just this? Or 'could' as in fitting it around your other needs and obligations? That difference is how most of us sleep at night.

Think of it like charities. You could theoretically give to any charity. But you cannot give to every charity. At some point you have to make a decision about the extent and direction of the charitable giving you do and the charitable giving that you do not do.

I also think the world is too complicated to think in terms of bad and good. You just have to try to lighten your own shade of grey as far as possible.

So turning a blind eye is 'bad' but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Sometimes it is a very sensible choice. And sometimes of course it isn't.

Personally, I try to make each decision on an individual basis depending on the current circumstances and the people involved, because if I tried to make rules for myself I would probably forget half of them.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm......

There are two chapters in the Tao Te Ching that I turn too when the world is being particularly sucky.

The first is about moral relativity Chapter 2.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

One person's good is another person's bad. Most people don't wake up and say 'hahahaha, I'm am going to perform evil acts rubs hands together' the world isn't that black and white, if it was, well, it would make life so much easier wouldn't it? That's why fundamental monotheist religions (predominantly islam and christianity) are so popular, someone tells you this is wrong, this is right, there isn't any of that crazy thinking or shades of grey to confuse things.

Sometimes good people do bad things, sometimes bad people do good things, sometimes bad things are done for good reasons and vice versa. If you put a line in the sand then that's the greatest injustice of all, because not every case is the same, not every evil is ...well evil.

The other chapter that I hold fast too, and it's possibly my favourite (depending, my favourites change all the bloody time).

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.

If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.

Keep to the three treasures, and if that isn't enough, let things take their natural course.

The three treasures: simplicity, patience, compassion.

If you do the right thing in life, if you live your life well, if you respect others, that's a big impact on the world, if you live your life the way you want the world to be, truly live your life that way, you are a living example to others.

Real life example, the United States, the country, it shouldn't interfere with the affairs of other nations, it should invest it's resources to being the best damn country in the world socially, and democratically, and the rest of the world will look at the United State and say 'wow, that is cool ' I truly believe that would have a more positive impact on the world then it's military interference.

Never undestimate the power of example, it's done more good in the world then I believe people realise.

Source: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

[babalon-93.livejournal.com]

My suspicion is that the real deep down cause for a lot of white writers sticking to white characters is not so much 'if I try and write not-white characters I will end up being a little bit racist and I might offend people so I better not try' but more along the lines of 'if I try and write not-white characters I will end up being a little bit racist and will be smacked down severely for it and so it is much safer for me not to try.'

I am not saying that this will or won't happen, but I do think the reasoning is more fear based than 'thinking of other peoples feelings' based.

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

In so far as the race thing goes:
Edward James Olmos is a FRAKING BAD ASS -->
http://odeo.com/episodes/24336353-Battlestar-Galactica-at-the-United-Nations-VIDEO

[stableglynn.livejournal.com]

Not only do I agree, but questioning why God was exempt from this was actually the original reason I stopped being Christian. I do think crippling yourself out of fear of being racist is a little bit silly, if you were truly not-racist then surely whether your characters were black or white would depend on the story you were telling. Sticking a token character of any sort in is just making life difficult for your narrative, and possibly being insulting.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

I agree more or less, but avoid judging people on their inaction as you rarely can see the full picture: A person may walk passed a kid getting attacking by a gang and do nothing but they:
-may have considered the odds so far against them that they wouldn't have been able to help whatsoever
-have a serious heart condition that would put them at huge risk if they got worked up
-have somewhere genuinely more important to get to fast etc.
9 times in 10 inaction has no such excuse, but you can't persecute somebody unless you are really sure. Then there is also weighing up the pros and cons of acting in a situation, which is somewhat subjective, and the other person may come to a different conclusion to you, even if you do know all the facts, and not necessarily be 'wrong' for their differing opinion.

As to the writing-about-POC thing, I think if I was an author and concerned about race and how many POC to include and if I could write about them fairly, I would just not mention the race of at least a good number of my characters... it's not exactly a relevant feature in the majority of stories, and if it is a relevant feature it should be pretty clear to the author whether or not they should include them.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

If there is something bad going on, and you're aware of it, and you could (try to) stop it, and you don't, are you complicit in that bad act? Are you being somewhat immoral/unethical?

The crunch has to be in that 'could'. How do you define 'could'? 'Could' as in if you set aside all your other priorities and devoted time and energy to just this? Or 'could' as in fitting it around your other needs and obligations? That difference is how most of us sleep at night.

Think of it like charities. You could theoretically give to any charity. But you cannot give to every charity. At some point you have to make a decision about the extent and direction of the charitable giving you do and the charitable giving that you do not do.

I also think the world is too complicated to think in terms of bad and good. You just have to try to lighten your own shade of grey as far as possible.

So turning a blind eye is 'bad' but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Sometimes it is a very sensible choice. And sometimes of course it isn't.

Personally, I try to make each decision on an individual basis depending on the current circumstances and the people involved, because if I tried to make rules for myself I would probably forget half of them.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm......

There are two chapters in the Tao Te Ching that I turn too when the world is being particularly sucky.

The first is about moral relativity Chapter 2.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

One person's good is another person's bad. Most people don't wake up and say 'hahahaha, I'm am going to perform evil acts rubs hands together' the world isn't that black and white, if it was, well, it would make life so much easier wouldn't it? That's why fundamental monotheist religions (predominantly islam and christianity) are so popular, someone tells you this is wrong, this is right, there isn't any of that crazy thinking or shades of grey to confuse things.

Sometimes good people do bad things, sometimes bad people do good things, sometimes bad things are done for good reasons and vice versa. If you put a line in the sand then that's the greatest injustice of all, because not every case is the same, not every evil is ...well evil.

The other chapter that I hold fast too, and it's possibly my favourite (depending, my favourites change all the bloody time).

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.

If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.

Keep to the three treasures, and if that isn't enough, let things take their natural course.

The three treasures: simplicity, patience, compassion.

If you do the right thing in life, if you live your life well, if you respect others, that's a big impact on the world, if you live your life the way you want the world to be, truly live your life that way, you are a living example to others.

Real life example, the United States, the country, it shouldn't interfere with the affairs of other nations, it should invest it's resources to being the best damn country in the world socially, and democratically, and the rest of the world will look at the United State and say 'wow, that is cool ' I truly believe that would have a more positive impact on the world then it's military interference.

Never undestimate the power of example, it's done more good in the world then I believe people realise.

Source: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

[babalon-93.livejournal.com]

My suspicion is that the real deep down cause for a lot of white writers sticking to white characters is not so much 'if I try and write not-white characters I will end up being a little bit racist and I might offend people so I better not try' but more along the lines of 'if I try and write not-white characters I will end up being a little bit racist and will be smacked down severely for it and so it is much safer for me not to try.'

I am not saying that this will or won't happen, but I do think the reasoning is more fear based than 'thinking of other peoples feelings' based.

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

In so far as the race thing goes:
Edward James Olmos is a FRAKING BAD ASS -->
http://odeo.com/episodes/24336353-Battlestar-Galactica-at-the-United-Nations-VIDEO